Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS

For Stafford, in the room of the right hon. Sir Hugh Charles Patrick Joseph Fraser, MBE, deceased.

For Surrey, South-West, in the room of the right hon. Maurice Victor Macmillan, deceased. — [Mr. Wakeham.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Reform

Mr. Wareing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any further responses to Cmnd. 9063, "Streamlining the Cities," since he last answered oral questions.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Yes. I have now received over 2,300 responses in total.

Mr. Wareing: What proportion of those responses call into question the right hon. Gentleman's proposals? Is he willing to accept the responses of the Merseyside chamber of commerce that Merseyside county council has successfully promoted economic and business activity in the region and that the abolition of that council would result in no savings for the business community on Merseyside? Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman told the Tory party conference last October that it should listen to the voice of industry, is it not about time that he practised what he preached?

Mr. Jenkin: The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to carry out this reform of the structure of local government in metropolitan areas, and we propose to do that.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give further thought to issuing a White Paper detailing his considered proposals when he has had an opportunity to reflect on all the representations that have been made to him?

Mr. Jenkin: I am considering the best way to announce our decisions on a number of matters about which we have received representations. I hope to show some of the Government's thinking when I move the Second Reading of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill which I introduced last Friday.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Further to the reply given to me by the Under-Secretary on 7 March, may I ask when

the right hon. Gentleman proposes to publish the full objections and representations that he has had about the White Paper?

Mr. Jenkin: As I said when I answered questions last time, it would be contrary to all precedent for the Government to publish all the representations that they have received. We shall make available shortly, I hope before the weekend, a brief summary analysis of the main points. That will be followed as soon as possible thereafter by the full summary analysis of the representations.

Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend know how much ratepayers' money the GLC has spent on propaganda in favour of its own continuation?

Mr. Jenkin: The figures that I have seen suggest that up to the end of March it spent more than £2 million and that it has budgeted to spend a further £1 million in the remainder of the calendar year. Many ratepayers will regard that as a gross abuse of ratepayers' money.

Dr. Cunningham: As the proposals are against all precedent, why are the House and the 18 million people who will be affected by the proposals being denied any sight of the evidence? Is it not true that there is no manifesto commitment for the abolition of elections in 1985 as is being proposed? Does the Secretary of St ate not recognise that he is setting a very dangerous constitutional precedent in taking this course of action?

Mr. Jenkin: On the contrary, all the precedents are in favour of what the Government are doing. In each previous local government reorganisation, in 1963 and 1972, provisions were introduced with wording very similar to that in the Bill which I hope the House will debate next week.

Dr. Cunningham: They were by-elections.

Mr. Jenkin: As well as catching by-elections, the provisions caught ordinary elections for county boroughs and urban and rural district elections, many of which were elected by thirds. We happen to be dealing with a council the whole of which is up for election, but the principle is the same.

Polychlorinated Biphenyl

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has received on the levels of incidence of polychlorinated biphenyl in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): Manufacture of polychlorinated biphenyls — PCBs — ceased in the United Kingdom in 1977. Their use is declining, and both their use and disposal are controlled. Evidence of a decline in environmental levels of PCBs is so far inconclusive. The evidence which Ministers receive is published and I will, with permission, circulate references in the Official Report.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that it is time to review the levels set for some of these persistent and toxic chemicals? Is he aware of the situation at Bonnyrigg, at the Re-Chem (International) factory? There is evidence that some of the cattle stock losses are attributable to PCB poisoning.

Mr. Waldegrave: I must refer an allegation about a specific incident in Scotland to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the inspectorate in Scotland is separate from that in England. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Re-Chem disposes of these substances under strict controls, which are kept up to date. Further provisions are under discussion in the EC for tightening the controls, and at the recent Council of Environment Ministers I was able to say that I welcomed those proposals.

Following are the references—
(i) Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics, No. 6, 1983 (DOE/HMSO 1984), Table 3.5(b); Additional Tables 24 and 29.
(ii) Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) residues in food and human tissues: 13th report of the Steering Group on Food Surveillance (MAFF/HMSO 1983).

Local Government Reform

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed cancellation of the 1985 elections in the metropolitan counties.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The proposed suspension was the subject of representations by all the six metropolitan counties, by a third of the metropolitan districts and by others. I considered those representations carefully before introducing the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill last Friday.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Secretary of State aware that the public are concerned that legislation is being introduced to abolish elections before the House has had an opportunity to vote on the principle of the abolition of metropolitan counties? Is not the real reason for the cancellation of elections simply the fact that the Government are frightened to give 18 million people the opportunity to vote on the issue?

Mr. Jenkin: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman because, as I made clear when the Bill was introduced and I held a press conference, it is my intention—and I shall announce this firmly on Second Reading—that an order for the suspension of elections will not be introduced until after the House has given a Second Reading to the main abolition Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Therefore, the proprieties will be preserved.

Mr. Hal Miller: With regard to the proposed Bill, will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a degree of scepticism about whether any reorganisation of local government can produce savings either in expenditure or staff and that he could help dispel such scepticism and gain support for his Bill if he were able to say that attention was being given to the whole question of local authority financing, without which it appears to some people that reorganisation is unlikely to produce the desired results?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will recognise, because he follows these things closely, that where affected authorities have been able to make worthwhile estimates of the cost to them of running the services that will devolve upon them, they have indicated the prospect of substantial savings. Part of the difficulty is that a number of authorities have forbidden their officers to take part in any discussions either with officials of my Department or with

the lower-tier authorities. Therefore, until that road block is removed I am not in a position to make detailed estimates covering the whole of the seven areas affected.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Secretary of State not aware that since he declared war on local authorities he has united such divided sections of the community as the Church leaders in Liverpool and what he has referred to as the militants on Liverpool city council? Is it not time he realised that the growing opposition to the policies he is pursuing must be recognised and that he should now consider the representations that have been made to him by the mass of the community in Liverpool about Merseyside county council?

Mr. Jenkin: There is a later question on Liverpool, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the House passed the Rates Bill by a larger majority on Third Reading than on Second Reading, which does not suggest declining support. Secondly—I have to remind the House of this when I have the opportunity — we are doing no more than implementing the recommendations of a large number of metropolitan districts, including Liverpool city council, which made the proposition that power should devolve upon them.

Mr. Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that if the measure for the suspension of the 1985 elections is passed it will imply that the House is satisfied with the Government's general proposals for metropolitan counties? Can he state whether he has yet heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) why he failed at any stage during the general election to defend the existence of the GLC or metropolitan authorities?

Mr Jenkin: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) must be answerable for himself, but I think his views are well known. The answer to my hon. Friend's first point is that we do not intend to introduce the order suspending the 1985 elections until after the House has given its approval in principle, which it will do by giving a Second Reading to the main abolition Bill at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Boyes: This question is about representation. How can I be assured that you will tell the truth about the——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I do tell the truth.

Mr. Boyes: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. How can I be assured that the Secretary of State will tell the truth, when one of his underlings deliberately lied to me on 29——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not in order either.

Mr. Boyes: I am sorry if I am using the wrong word, but there are so many different words to use. When the Under-Secretary said——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This the third time. The hon. Gentleman must not quote. He must ask his question.

Mr. Boyes: When I asked a question about how many metropolitan council opposition leaders were against abolition, I was deliberately misled, and the House was deliberately misled, by Mr. Waldegrave——

Mr. Speaker: Order. "The Minister" would be more helpful.

Mr. Boyes: The Minister deliberately misled the House by implying——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Nobody in the House deliberately misleads. The hon. Gentleman must know that.

Mr. Boyes: The Minister misled the House when he implied that the opposition leader on the metropolitan county council of Tyne and Wear was in favour of the abolition of Tyne and Wear council. I have proved to him since, by sending him a minute of the meeting, that this is not true.

Mr. Jenkin: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might decently have offered an apology for the accusations that he tried to make against my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hayes: Is it not remarkable that Opposition Members should be complaining about a lack of consultation, when it was made clear by the British people at the general election that they wanted the abolition of the metropolitan counties because they were sick to death of the £770 million overspend, leading to the loss of jobs?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend has obviously been reading the Labour party's manifesto at the last election, in which it proposed single-tier local government, including the abolition of the metropolitan district councils and, presumably, the GLC.

Dr. Cunningham: Is it not complete deception for the Secretary of State to say that there are precedents for what he now proposes? When did a Government ever use a device to bypass the ballot box and change political control of a major city in this country?

Mr. Jenkin: The precedents are perfectly clear. If the hon. Gentleman refers to schedule 3(6) to the London Government Act 1963 and to schedule 3(12) to the Local Government Act 1972, he will find precedents that are very close indeed to what we are putting before the House. The fact that on this occasion the whole authority will be up for election is a difference of degree, not a difference of principle.

Systems-built Dwellings

Mr. Concannon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet able to announce the date for publication of his Bill relating to systems-built dwellings.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): The Bill will be introduced later today and published tomorrow.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Minister aware of the urgent need for its publication, if only to allay the fears of householders who find themselves living in what is now virtually blighted property?

Mr. Gow: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman and hope that it will be possible for the Bill to have a speedy passage through the House, in order to give assistance to precisely those to whom he refers.

Mr. Hugh Brown: Will it be a United Kingdom Bill, and will there be consultation with the Scottish Office to increase the capital allowances that will be required by authorities which must buy back houses and do a great deal of remedial work?

Mr. Gow: The Bill will apply to England, Scotland and Wales. I understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will introduce similar provisions for

Northern Ireland. We have decided that where local authorities have a duty to repurchase under the arrangements there will be an Exchequer contribution equal to 75 per cent. of an authority's expenditure in excess of the defective value of the house or flat repurchased.

Mr. Heffer: We shall examine the Bill carefully, as we on these Benches believe that the private owners concerned are entitled to assistance. Is the hon. Gentleman aware, however, that there will be many thousands of council tenants as well as local authorities—this appears to be the case at present, and I hope that the Bill will deal with the situation—who will not receive financial aid to deal with the problems involved? Has the hon. Gentleman seen the AMA report entitled "Defects in Housing'', in part 2 of which it is estimated that it will cost £5 billion to deal with the problems of post-1950 systems-built housing, and that a further £5 billion will be needed to cure the problems created by similar pre-1950 properties? What provision will be made to help both tenants and authorities? Is the hon. Gentleman not also aware that the local councils were subjected to pressure by Governments, including Labour Governments, to use systems-built housing? The councils now require assistance. What assistance will they receive under the Bill?

Mr. Gow: I am aware of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Indeed, we had a three-hour debate on this topic during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill last month. Present subsidy arrangements take into account expenditure on redevelopment and capitalised repairs. In general, 75 per cent. of the loan charges on capitalised repairs and redevelopment count towards an authority's subsidy entitlement.

Council House Sales

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council properties were sold in 1982–83 other than to sitting tenants.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): An estimated 5,700 dwellings were sold, other than to sitting tenants, by English local authorities and new towns in 1982–83.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that Wandsworth council—and this may have been done by others—has recently approached tenants on a local council estate and told them that they will have to leave their properties because they are to be done up, repaired or improved, and then sold? Will the Minister condemn this action by Wandsworth council as typifying a kind of latter-day Rachmanism which should have no part in British local government?

Sir George Young: Certainly not. The question which the hon. Gentleman tabled deals with the sale of vacant dwellings, whereas the issues that he has just raised—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]The question relates to dwellings sold other than to sitting tenants, and the question which the hon. Gentleman just posed relates to dwellings where there are sitting tenants.
Wandsworth council has raised about £9 million by selling dwellings other than to sitting tenants, which has enabled it to make faster progress. I have seen an article in The Standard today which I think relates to the hon.


Gentleman's supplementary question. I have to say that the allocation and management of the housing stock is a matter for Wandsworth council.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that those 5,000 people who bought their homes under the homesteading scheme, or under the half-and-half scheme, should be eternally grateful to the Government in the last Parliament for allowing them to do so? Does my hon. Friend also agree that a large proportion of those people bought their homes with the benefit of a mortgage from the local authority? Would not his advice from the Dispatch Box today be that they should transfer their mortgages to a building society at perhaps a lower rate of interest?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is correct. Not only may there be advantages to the owner-occupier in such a transfer, but there would be a real benefit to the local authority, which would then be able to apply the capital received to make faster progress in tackling the housing problems that remain.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that often it is in the interests of local residents that property should be filled rather than left empty for years, and that if, as a result, it is necessary to sell that property to local residents, so that it can be occupied and they are willing to buy at a fair price, that should be encouraged?

Sir George Young: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I only wish that more authorities had acted as promptly as Wandsworth council in putting vacant houses to good use.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that it is getting close to Easter, but there is a great deal of unnecessary noise.

Mr. Mawhinney: When does my hon. Friend intend to give council tenants, whether sitting or not, a statutory right to buy council shops in which they are trading?

Sir George Young: We have no plans to introduce legislation along those lines.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that Sefton metropolitan district council is allowing people on the waiting list and, worse, people whose houses are being demolished by the council to view empty council properties, and then telling the families that they cannot have the properties because they are to be sold with vacant possession at a profit? Is it not a scandal, when there are so many people in housing need, that people who can afford to pay for council houses, and those in need in slum clearance areas and on waiting lists, are refused the opportunity to do so?

Sir George Young: The important thing is that vacant houses should be occupied. In many cases it is to the advantage of the local authority and those on the waiting list if those houses are occupied by owners. Most local authorities in those circumstances give first preference either to those on the waiting list or to sitting council tenants who wish to move. If they do that, they get the benefit of the re-let. What is needed in this area is a determination by local authorities to put the houses to good use, and in many cases owner-occupation is the answer.

Mrs. Rumbold: Would it not be helpful to inform local authorities that it would be good for tenants to purchase not only the homes in which they have been living but those which are vacant, so that there can be an overall

policy whereby local authorities are made aware that property can be bought not only by sitting tenants but by other council tenants?

Sir George Young: Local authorities have been given a general consent to sell vacant properties into home ownership. They can grant discounts of up to 30 per cent. off market value to buyers falling within defined priority categories, such as first-time buyers and job movers. Anything that can be done to remind local authorities of those powers would be warmly welcomed.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Minister recognise that there is an appalling problem of homelessness and housing need which most often occurs among people who cannot afford to buy homes? Will he undertake to restrict local authorities in the sale of empty houses and housing land to neighbouring local authorities or to housing associations which have as their prime objective the meeting of housing needs, not the making of profit?

Sir George Young: No. I cannot see the objection to vacant property owned by local authorities being sold to people who wish to live there, especially if first preference is given to those on the waiting list.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not got very far with questions today. May I ask for shorter supplementary questions, which may possibly lead to shorter answers?

Qualgos

Mr. Chope: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on Government policy towards quasi-autonomous local government organisations.

Sir George Young: Local authorities are answerable to their electorates for their participation in other bodies. I hope that such participation is the subject of regular and rigorous reassessment, although that is a matter for local people themselves.

Mr. Chope: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report issued last week by the Adam Smith institute called "The Qualgo Complex", and has he noted that the report shows that about 60,000 appointments are being made to 25,000 quangos each year at a cost to ratepayers of about £40 million? Is it not time that the Government intervened to stop this local authority gravy train?

Sir George Young: I have acquired a copy of the report, although the institute did not send me a complimentary one. I have not had time to read it carefully, but in the first instance I should wish to hear the views of those in local government to assess their reaction to the report.

Mr. Tony Banks: Since we are talking about quangos, will the Minister inform the House when was the last time that direct elections were scrapped for a body that would continue in existence after the elections? When was the directly elected body substitued by indirectly elected——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the question.

Mr. Banks: No, Sir. If I may come on to the question, when was a directly elected local authority body substituted by indirectly elected quangos and joint boards and the political control of that body changed?

Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt adequately with that question a few moments ago.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who are most keen for the metropolitan districts to be abolished are equally keen that they should not be replaced by a plethora of new quangos?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend must await our detailed proposals on the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" before he can comment exactly on what we have suggested.

Mr. Straw: Is it not true that under the so-called "Streamlining the Cities" White Paper there will be an enormous increase in quangos? How many joint boards, appointed bodies and other quangos will be established if the abolition legislation goes through?

Sir George Young: We have a number of questions on the Order Paper about abolition, on which it will be appropriate to deal with these particular points. The Government are, however, considering the responses to the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" and we shall publish our proposals in due course.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to publish the results of his consultations concerning the future ownership and management of bridges, tunnels, ferries and piers, currently the responsibility of the Greater London council.

Sir George Young: This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. We are still considering the responses to our White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities", and we shall announce decisions on the future arrangements for particular functions in due course.

Mr. Spearing: Is not the Minister aware that there are 16 bridges, five tunnels and 10 piers run by the GLC, together with the Woolwich free ferry, which serves my constituents in Silvertown and North Woolwich? It also carries 1 million vehicles a year at a cost of £2 million. Is he suggesting that these costs be carried by local ratepayers? Do not these facts suggest that we need local government to run the services that serve London as a whole?

Sir George Young: Most of these points fall to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but I can say that we shall take account of the financial consequences for the individual London boroughs that take over particular bridges. I am confident that the London boroughs will be able to look after the bridges. It is not the case that all the bridges in London are run by the GLC; some are run by the City of London. I understand that my right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that the Woolwich ferry will continue.

Mr. Bottomley: Would my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government are to have to take a view on the ferry, the piers and the landing stages, it would be rather more

helpful if the GLC would allow the employees of those services to talk to staff of the Departments of Transport and of the Environment rather than trying to keep them in purdah?

Sir George Young: I agree absolutely with what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that there was no mention of the Woolwich ferry in the consultation documents? In view of the concern that the lack of a clear statement by his colleagues at the Department of Transport has aroused, can he assure the House that the Woolwich free ferry will continue as a free service?

Sir George Young: This is a matter that falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I understand that the Department of Transport has said that it is considering the future arrangements for the ferry but has given an undertaking that it will continue.

Water Rates

Mr. Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the amounts paid by major commercial and industrial firms in water rates since the introduction of water metering, and of the comparable amount paid under the former historical method of raising payment on rateable values in (a) the Thames water authority area and (b) the Northumbrian water authority area.

Mr. Gow: Details of individual bills paid by consumers for their water services are not held by the Department. Water undertakers offer to all classes of consumer the option of a metered supply, in order to comply with section 30 of the Water Act 1973.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are many domestic water ratepayers who are appalled to learn that institutions and banks can save astronomical sums of money by going over to metering and that they then have to bear the cost of that? What will the Government do to reduce the amount of money having to be paid by water ratepayers, particularly in the light of the advertisement appearing in the CBI News, encouraging all firms to go over to metering, when that money will have to be made up by the domestic ratepayer, who is currently unable to have any form of rebate?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is a distinguished former member of the Thames water authority but I must remind him that, whereas rates are a tax, water rates are a charge made for a service provided. The Government believe that it is right that the charge should reflect the use that is made by the consumer and that, in many cases, particularly with industrial and commercial premises, it is much fairer to charge on a metered basis rather than on the basis of rateable value.

Mrs. Currie: As a financial supporter of the Thames water authority, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he has any real plans for putting a stop to the staggering rise in water rates—for example, a little rate-capping? Would he take note of the fact that many ordinary ratepayers and water ratepayers will not for long tolerate the monopoly prices charged by this monopoly supplier?

Mr. Gow: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend. Our estimates are that the average increase in main charges for


water for the coming financial year is 5·1 per cent. and for households 6·4 per cent. In the Thames water authority area, the average annual bill for a property with a rateable value of £150 will go up by £3·75 for the whole year and, for a property with a rateable value of £400, by £6·68 for the whole year.

Mr. Nellist: Given the almost unprecedented criticism coming from the Conservative Benches, does the Minister think that it might be a good idea to institute direct elections to the water boards so that water ratepayers can decide on the future of those whom he has appointed to the boards?

Mr. Gow: No, Sir.

Mr. Montague Alfred

Mr. Ernie Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what costs to his Department were involved in terminating the appointment of Mr. Alfred as chairman of the Property Services Agency.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: My officials are in touch with Mr. Alfred on the amount to be paid by reason of the termination of his appointment.

Mr. Ross: Does the Secretary of State admit that he sacked Mr. Alfred as chairman of the Property Services Agency because of the rampant corruption and masonic influence that exists in the PSA? Does he agree that it is time to bring in the police for a thorough investigation?

Mr. Jenkin: I make it absolutely clear that there is no suggestion, and never has been, that Mr. Alfred was in any way implicated in any of the corruption cases. I want that to be firmly understood. His three-year service contract, which was due to run until the end of this year, was terminated by mutual agreement. In those circumstances, it is entirely appropriate that we should consider what compensation payment to make.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the PSA is that it is so large that it is difficult to manage? Will he use the opportunity that has now arisen to examine the agency's functions to see what scope there is for further privatisation of them and for the additional use of design and construct contracts?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend has put his finger firmly on the problems—the size and diversity of the PSA. I must point out to him that 100 per cent. of its main construction works and over 90 per cent. of its maintenance works are put out to private contract. Within a short time we hope that up to 60 per cent. of its design work will be put out to private contract. There are a number of major questions about the management and organisation of the PSA, and I assure my hon. Friend that we have them under active study.

Wildlife and Countryside Act

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir, in general. We are, however, keeping its operation under review.

Mr. Ross: While I recognise that the Wildlife and Countryside Act was a major step forward in

environmental conservation, does the Minister agree that there is a need now to take a much tougher approach with those who plough up sites of special scientific interest, such as the Halvergate marsh in Norfolk or the Alverstone marsh in my constituency, to grow grain, which we do not need? Will he take on board the recommendations of the Nature Conservancy Council and others and take steps to ensure we can prevent what is now happening and costing the nation too much money?

Mr. Waldegrave: We always consider seriously the views of the Nature Conservancy Council. The chairman of the NCC said recently that he thought that the damage to SSSIs had diminished since the passage of the Act. We have only had a year of the full working of the Act.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Wildlife and Countryside Act must only be a start in our campaign to protect our countryside? Is he aware that habitats are still being destroyed, with the help of public subsidies, to add to agricultural surpluses? Is not that nonsense in the light of recent events in Europe?

Mr. Waldegrave: We shall certainly keep the relationship between agriculture and conservation under close review.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that in recent weeks and months substantial evidence has reached the Department about damage done to important sites as a result of the three-month loophole, which was unwittingly left within the Act? Does he accept that there is now a growing and widespread view that that loophole must be closed? Can we soon expect a favourable response to the requests that he received some weeks ago?

Mr. Waldegrave: As I told the hon. Member when we discussed this previously, the Government are considering the matter, but I have no news for him as yet.

Mr. Rowe: While I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that he is keeping the Act under review, is it not true that the need to cut agricultural production, to some extent, gives an opportunity in the short term to encourage farmers — by changing the subsidy arrangements — to make better provision for conservation as many of them would like to do but find extremely difficult under present grant arrangements?

Mr. Waldegrave: I rather agree with my hon. Friend that, as we go into a period when surpluses are bound to be cut, farmers may be more interested in the kind of approach that he mentioned.

Mr. Dalyell: Is Halvergate now safe?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can assure the hon. Member that Halvergate is safe for a year. We are in the process of discussions with my noble Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see whether we can ensure its long-term security, which is of great importance.

Dr. David Clark: Having heard opinions from both sides of the House, does the Minister appreciate that many people feel that certain provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act have failed? May I make the Minister a serious offer? Is he prepared to meet the Opposition and reach a consensus on necessary and urgent remedial legislation?

Mr. Waldegrave: I hear from both sides of the House that many hon. Members believe that the basis provided


by the Wildlife and Countryside Act may need further provisions. I shall be delighted to talk to hon. Members about their proposals.

Football Hooliganism

Mr. Pendry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider making his liaison group a more effective body in the monitoring of football hooliganism.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The task of the liaison group is to co-ordinate policy and precautions against violence associated with soccer. I am currently reviewing, in the light of recent events, all options open to the Government.

Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that his liaison group met last on 16 February about two weeks before the England-France game in Paris which, as the House knows, resulted in appalling violence? How can the Minister be satisfied that the liaison group is an effective body to combat football hooliganism unless it meets regularly immediately before and after such games so that the right conclusions may be drawn? When will the Minister publish the results of his inquiry into the matter? Finally, will he broaden the group——

Mr. Speaker: One at a time.

Mr. Macfarlane: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but he must not assume that because a meeting took place in February it was necessarily associated with the Paris match. Preparations for that match and others began last September, with dialogue at varying levels, as I have told the hon. Gentleman. The liaison group is essentially a partnership between football governing bodies and the relevant Departments. Mistakes have occurred, and we must continue to consider urgently problems surrounding the stadium, distribution of tickets and travel.

Mr. Parry: The House will have noted the great example set by Liverpool and Everton fans in two Milk Cup finals. In spite of the problems of Liverpool, that shows the Government that we still have a lot of bottle. I hope that the House will express the wish that Everton reaches the final of the FA Cup.

Mr. Macfarlane: I must refrain from partiality, but I pay the highest tribute to the football supporters and spectators of both clubs, not only for their exemplary behaviour in recent weeks but for their continuing good behaviour over many years.

Sir Anthony Grant: Excluding, of course, the examples of Everton and Liverpool, is my hon. Friend satisfied that other clubs and players are doing all that they can to curb this nonsense? Does he think that the antics of some footballers during and immediately after matches, which did not occur in the days of Sir Stanley Matthews, Bobby Charlton and other great players, unnecessarily excite the more lunatic elements in the crowd?

Mr. Macfarlane: The performance and actions of some football players can undoubtedly inflame spectators. However, the worst excesses of violence have occurred outside the stadium and, more recently, outside this country. Violence outside the stadium is a continuing problem for all civil authorities.

Mr. John Hunt: Is it not true that many thugs and hooligans can be readily identified through television coverage of matches? Can more be done to track down and prosecute them by that means?

Mr. Macfarlane: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important aspect. Many prosecutions result from such identification, helped by equipment inside the stadium and elsewhere. Clearly, much of my hon. Friend's question should be diverted to my hon. Friends at the Home Office.

Mr. Ashton: Why is it that when a handful of hooligans can wreck a football stadium in Paris, the Government do nothing but wring their hands and set up a committee of inquiry, yet when miners want to go on peaceful picketing, they are stopped and over 500 are arrested——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is widening the question too far.

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the offences during the recent England-France match occurred outside this country. Unless the French authorities prosecute and convict, there is no statutory system in this country whereby a prosecution can take place for offences committed outside the country.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: As there has been mention of famous football clubs, may I say to my hon. Friend that my football club of Stamford will be at Wembley in the final of the Vase? There will be no violence at that match because the fans are orderly. Is my hon. Friend aware that much of the violence comes about because the young people who go to the matches have too easy access to drink?

Mr. Macfarlane: I take note of that point. Many league clubs automatically prohibit alcohol. We try to operate a voluntary system in this country. I wish my hon. Friend's constituency team good luck at Wembley in the final.

Dr. Cunningham: Does not the Minister agree that, as football hooligans pose a real threat to the reputation of this country, more needs to be done to stop them travelling abroad in the first place? If the police can stop miners going about peaceful picketing, why cannot the Government come up with proposals to prevent football hooligans from doing what they are doing? That is an important question. Do not the events in Paris confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said — that present Government policy is not working and new initiatives are required?

Mr. Macfarlane: The present Government policy is very much working. Overseas travel and the problems surrounding English clubs and the international sides were of such concern to me that I began the European initiative in January 1983, working with some 20 other Ministers responsible for sport in the Council of Ministers. I believe that it still has time to work. Mistakes occurred on the other side of the English Channel. We are looking closely at those matters.

Property Services Agency

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce the name of the new chairman of the Property Services Agency.

Mr. Haynes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make a statement regarding the future chairmanship of the Property Services Agency.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am considering that as a matter of urgency and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Does that answer mean that in the meanwhile, pending that announcement, the reorganisation proposals particularly associated with the name of the previous chairman, affecting regional offices such as those in Reading, will be in abeyance?

Mr. Jenkin: When I announced the retirement, by mutual agreement, of Mr. Alfred, I made it clear that we were suspending the plans for reorganisation which, as my hon. Friend said, were closely associated with Mr. Alfred's position as chief executive. We have reached the conclusion that it would not be sensible at this stage to proceed along the lines that he advocated. However, as I said in answer to an earlier question, we are considering a number of issues about the role and future of the Property Services Agency as a matter of urgency. That factor will weigh with us in the choice of a new chief executive.

Mr. Haynes: Will the Secretary of State now admit that the appointment of Mr. Alfred was a total disaster? Is he aware that we in the Opposition think that the right hon. Gentleman is a total disaster? Could I help the Secretary of State by asking him whether he will ensure — [AN HON. MEMBER: "Wind up, Frank."] I am not going to wind up. Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is a full debate in the House on the Public Accounts Committee report concerning the PSA before he makes a new appointment?

Mr. Jenkin: I shall have to bear the slings and arrows that the hon. Gentleman directed at me with such fortitude as I can command. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have publicly expressed our thanks to Mr. Alfred for the excellent work that he did when he was chief executive of the PSA. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the recent report of the PAC, I should tell him that it has been debated. If he is referring to the report that is shortly to come, his question is a little premature.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Property Services Agency is a very large and complex organisation with enormous scope for things to go wrong —deliberately or otherwise—and that it will call for a chairman of remarkable calibre to bring it to order, so that we can have confidence that it is running properly?

Mr. Jenkin: I should like to take the opportunity of saying from the Dispatch Box that the PSA is an organisation in which a great many things go right and things are done to an extremely high standard. I should instance the opening earlier today of the Cabinet war rooms. If hon. Members can find the time to visit them, they will see that the work that the PSA can do, with the Imperial war museum, is of a very high standard indeed. But my hon. Friend is right; it is a very complex organisation and requires very high-quality management.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Secretary of State please ensure that whoever is appointed is suitable — unlike Mr. Alfred? Will he also ensure that he is not paid the inflated salary of £50,000 that Mr. Alfred was paid, and that there is no engagement in a another tax fiddle by paying the salary into a private company?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman would be well advised not to use the words "tax fiddle" outside the House. Indeed, he should not use the privilege of this House to say such things inside the House. But we are considering the question of a successor to Mr. Alfred.

Mr. Straw: Why does the Secretary of State not admit what everybody outside the House knows very well—that Mr. Montague Alfred was dismissed from his £1,000-a-week job as a result of two wasted years in that appointment, his failure to root out inefficiency and corruption and his consequent undermining of the confidence and trust of the overwhelming majority of the staff, whose integrity and efficiency are not in question? Will the Secretary of State say whether he agrees with the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee by his own officials or with that given by Mr. Alfred, since the two are contradictory? Could he also say whether he is now satisfied with the actions of the PSA to root out and eliminate fraud and corruption?

Mr. Jenkin: When I made the statement on 5 October, when we published the Wardale-Touche Ross report, I made it abundantly clear that the Government attached the highest priority to implementation of the recommendations of that report in order to—as the hon. Gentleman has said—root out the corruption that the report discussed. But I must make it abundantly clear—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this—that there is not the slightest suggestion and never has been a glimmer of suggestion that Mr. Alfred himself has had any connection with corruption.

Mr. Straw: indicated assent.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to have that assurance because, in view of some of the things that have been said, it should be firmly on the record.

Uplands (Countryside Commission Report)

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received the report of the Countryside Commission, "A Better Future for the Uplands"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir. We welcome this comprehensive report, which is being studied. I shall report to the House when this study has been completed.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will, of course, recognise the departmental division of responsibility between the DOE and the Scottish Office and also the division of responsibility within the Countryside Commission itself. Given that, will the Minister take steps to see that the Scottish Office encourages a similar analysis north of the border so that the important and legitimate debate on the right balance between upland areas and forestry holdings takes place on a national basis?

Mr. Waldegrave: I sympathise with what the hon. Member says and will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend accept that, while many people in the uplands areas will welcome this report, nevertheless there are measures in it — such as the recommendation that capital allowances for land improvement and land drainage should be withdrawn in


certain circumstances—which will make the agricultural community in places like Dartmoor wonder whether a balance is being struck between the interests of the conservationists on the one hand and their interests and need to earn a living in an agricultural environment?

Mr. Waldegrave: Clearly, getting the balance right is a controversial business and I note my hon. Friend's comments. I think that there are quite a lot of things in the report that some of the agriculturists like, but there are other things that certainly worry them.

Colliery Waste

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to stop the tipping of colliery waste on the foreshore of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Macfarlane: We have already taken steps to find a cost-effective and environmentally acceptable solution for spoil disposal from coastal collieries, and I am

considering what further action is needed in the light of the tenth report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that the 1981 report on coal and the environment and the report to which he has referred today condemned the tipping in the strongest possible terms and that both referred specifically to the north-east coast? Does he agree that it is essential that adequate financial assistance—certainly more than there is at present—be provided for this purpose? Why should the north-east suffer? Would the Minister sit idly by if the beaches of Bournemouth and Torquay were being destroyed?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have already taken some joint action, financed jointly by the NCB and local authorities. on an experimental pipeline at Hordern colliery. Some derelict land grant has already been spent on land reclamation in the hon. Gentleman's county of Durham but the problem is sufficiently difficult for me to wish to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency to look at the area in some detail within the next six or seven weeks.

Mining Dispute (Police Action)

Mr. Allen McKay: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the erosion of civil liberties arising from the present coal industry dispute.
To put my request into proper perspective, I should tell the House that for 20 years I was a member of the National Union of Mineworkers and for a number of years I was proud to be branch secretary at the colliery at which I worked. Fourteen years before I came to the House, however, I became a member of the British Association of Colliery Management. I am still a member of, and an unpaid consultant to, that association. Members of the association have been on the receiving end on the picket lines and will no doubt be consulting me and the general secretary about these matters in the near future. It was a very sad occasion when a member of the management team was fatally injured while carrying out safety work at a colliery and I am sure that the sympathy of the House and of the whole mining industry goes to his family.
I am not seeking a debate to attack the police force —quite the contrary—but I believe that a debate would be in the best interests of the House, of civil liberties and of the police themselves. After all, when it is all over, we shall have to live together. The police have told constituents of mine that they have every sympathy but that they also have their instructions. I believe that the House has a right to know what those instructions are, what effect the Attorney-General's statement has had on them and whether they are being carried out or exceeded.
In the light of allegations received daily by my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially those with mining interests, there is an urgent need for a debate on the erosion of the civil liberties of the people whom we represent. In the past few days, my hon. Friends have given examples of what is happening. I shall not cite all those that I have received. Suffice it to say that one of my constituents who not many years ago received a commendation from the police for going to the assistance of a sergeant who was being severely abused now says that he intends to send the commendation back because of the treatment that he has received. I hope that he will not do so, as it was well earned and deserved. Another complainant was a member of the special constabulary for many years. These people are not Yorkshire yobboes, as some would describe them, but people described at a tribunal as the salt of the earth.
There are two issues involved—the mining dispute and the erosion of civil liberties. If we are not careful, the smokescreen of the mining dispute will fog the views of hon. Members about what is happening to civil liberties. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that freedom and civil rights belong both to the majority and to the minority. The House ought to debate the issue before that majority and that minority accuse us of sitting on our bottoms while freedom and liberty are eroded. I am concerned about the incidents that there have been and the serious nature of what is happening.
If the House is not concerned about the freedom of the people—both minorities and majorities—the House is nothing. I therefore believe that it is urgent and necessary that we should debate this subject.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the erosion of civil liberties arising from the present coal industry dispute.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, as Hansard records and as you will remember, an application was made for the fifth time for a debate along the lines of that sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) today. You said that you could not grant the request, but stressed that the debate could not be granted on that day. We all understand that there are guidelines and conventions to be followed and we were —to say the least—under the impression that you would be prepared to consider such a request if a further application were made.
I am beginning to wonder whether we are being strung along—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that is fair enough—strung along, because this has now been going on for more than a week. The first application under Standing Order No. 10 was made a week ago last Monday, immediately after the police were sent into Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. We have been under the impression that the allocation of a Standing Order No. 10 emergency debate was imminent. During the course of the past few days, we have felt that it was almost a certainty. We should like to know what the prospects are.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bob Clay: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for points of order on this matter. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should not read into what I said yesterday more than what I have said today. No point of order can arise on that.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the application under Standing Order No. 10. Is the point of order on a different matter?

Sir Kenneth Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. He knows that I have ruled on the matter and that I am not prepared to take further points of order about this application under Standing Order No. 10.

Later——

Mr. Clay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and am not in any way challenging your


ruling concerning the Standing Order No. 10 application. The problem of civil liberties—I am not referring to the miners' dispute——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must raise a point of order on which I can rule. I cannot rule on civil liberties.

Later——

Mr. Clay: rose——

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we are not to have a debate—you have already ruled on that matter, Mr. Speaker, and I do not challenge your ruling—when can we expect a report from the Minister about 19 of my constituents on 27 March?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Later——

Mr. Clay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but not on the Standing Order No. 10 application.

Mr. Clay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my anxiety is that, your ruling having been given, the problem of civil liberties — quite separate from the miners' dispute— is now arising in Berkshire. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I have been there today—it is nothing to do with the miners' dispute—and we discovered, a mile and more from the Greenham common camp, police road blocks preventing ordinary members of the public——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member is relatively new, but that is not a matter on which I can rule. What happens at Greenham common is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Tony Benn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept that you are not responsible for the business of the House but the point that arises is that if an hon. Member is to make an application under Standing Order No. 10, he must raise the matter in the House at the earliest possible moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and I have just returned from Greenham common, where a mass eviction occurred this morning. There is also a police road block there, which raises exactly the same issues as they do elsewhere. There is also confiscation of property and a police barrier around some property. [Interruption.]
I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will listen sympathetically to this point. If this matter is not raised at the earliest moment, but is raised tomorrow, you might argue that it could have been raised today. I ask you to consider this point seriously, in advance of a possible application tomorrow under Standing Order No. 10. I repeat what I said yesterday: if major erosions of civil liberties occur and are brought to the attention of the House, and if, for one reason or another, the House does not find the opportunity to discuss those matters, the House will be brought into disrepute. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. On the earlier incident at Greenham common, the facts were available before 12 o'clock, as the House knows. There would have been an opportunity for hon. Members to make an application under Standing Order No. 10 if they had wished.

Mr. Clay: Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take any further points on this matter.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that yesterday there was a question on the Order Paper about student travel arrangements, and during education Question Time there was a lengthy exchange about question 12. At the end of that exchange, the Minister referred to
consultations that we are undertaking".—[Official Report, 3 April 1984, Vol 57; c. 800.]
It appears that soon after that exchange took place a question was put down by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for written answer today. The Government are giving a detailed statement in the form of a reply to that question, to the effect that about 125,000 students will be worse off, and that students in Ulster will be especially disadvantaged.
Is it not an abuse of the House for a Minister to avoid answering a question about student travel in Question Time, and for a written question mysteriously to appear — I understand that you do not accept the idea of planted questions, Mr. Speaker—on the Order Paper late last night and for a written answer to appear today? Hon. Members now have no opportunity to question the Government about a substantial change in the arrangements for student travel. Can you give us some guidance on this point?

Mr. Speaker: I naturally listened during Question Time yesterday and heard what was said. The hon. Gentleman draws the House's attention to written question No. 167 today, but what questions are put on the Order Paper are not matters of order or matters for me. I regret that I cannot help.

Later—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said in reply to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that you are not responsible for questions on the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that you suggested that you are not responsible. In so far as you are responsible, Mr. Speaker, can you refer to question No. 7 which was asked today by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). In reply to it and all supplementary questions, the Minister repeated that he was not responsible for answering that question but that it should have been answered by the Secretary of State for Transport. May we have some explanation about how it was possible for that question to be tabled in environment Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into how the question came to be on today's Order Paper. I heard the Minister answer quite detailed points on that question, but he incidentally referred to the fact that the main responsibility lay with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Select Committees (Evidence)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can I raise a matter that I have discussed briefly with you and written to you about? It arises from the deliberations of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, but I do not wish to speak in that context, because that Committee has not reported to the House. If anything which I have said in another context and which has been reported has broken any rules of the House, I apologise.
If a Select Committee has taken evidence in public but has not published that evidence and does not intend to produce a report, although some members of the Committee might feel that a report should be published, does anything prevent hon. Members, acting in a personal capacity, from using such evidence to support a private report on the subject under consideration? If this matter needs more thought, perhaps I can leave it with you, Mr. Speaker, but I should be grateful for your guidance so that I do not break the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The sensible thing for me to do is to look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I shall communicate with him.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSING DEFECTS

Mr. Patrick Jenkin, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Ian Gow and Sir George Young, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with defective dwellings disposed of by public sector authorities; and to provide for certain provisions in agreements between building societies to be disregarded for the purposes of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 5 April and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

Slaughter of Animals (Amendment)

Mr. Richard Page: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 in respect of methods of slaughtering food animals.
The Bill will amend the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 by introducing a code of practice. It will require the code to be subject to a five-yearly review to cover the handling, stunning and slaughter of food animals. I present the Bill with cross-party support.
Among the specific matters to which I require the code of practice to address itself is the standardisation of forms dealing with applications by, and the training and licensing of, slaughtermen to produce a definite commonality among the local authorities. That would be coupled with the introduction of a national trade test to agreed standards before allowing slaughtermen to move from a provisional to a full licence. That measure should help not only to ensure a high uniform national standard but also those slaughtermen who may wish to move employment from one area of authority to another.
The code of practice would cover also the efficiency of slaughter techniques, especially when piecework and high throughput are involved. The House will appreciate that an operation that is humane and effective when handling 20 food animals per hour may not be as efficient when handling 40 animals per hour and, above that level, it may become unsatisfactory.
I intend that the code will provide close guidance on the electrical stunning methods employed for calves, pigs and sheep, as current strength and placing of electrodes is vital in producing unconsciousness. Conditions that are not closely maintained will produce paralysis instead of loss of consciousness before slaughter.
The code will set down methods of handling food animals when bringing them to the point of slaughter, and special attention will be given to the efficiency and condition of the restraint devices. I intend that rigorous care should be taken to ensure that the equipment used is in full, effective working order at all times.
The code of practice would be reviewed on a five-yearly basis by the Minister. Before an update was issued, as would happen if the regulations were altered, account would be taken of the views of those organisations that appear to the Minister to represent the various interests. Account will be taken especially of the body appointed by the Minister to conduct a review during that five-year period into the handling, stunning and slaughter of animals.
I have in mind a body such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council, but I hasten to add that I have no idea of that body's views on whether such a proposal is acceptable to it. Naturally, I hope that its response will be positive. The appointed body would have wide-ranging terms of reference and, in particular, would encourage research into these areas and promote those systems that it found to be the most humane.
At this point, it would be right to refer to the current controversy about the exemption given to methods of religious slaughter. As the House knows, the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933 — now incorporated in the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 — required that all animals

should be first stunned by mechanical or electrical instruments before being slaughtered by being bled. A section allows an exemption for methods of religious slaughter. Those methods involve no pre-stunning, but require the animal to be first cast and then its throat cut.
While I would be among the first to acknowledge the wisdom behind the methods in the sensible health codes promoted in the past, I should prefer, as do the hon. Members who are sponsoring the Bill, to ensure that all food animals are correctly — I emphasise the word "correctly"—stunned before slaughter. Although that is my view, it is not my wish or the purpose of the Bill to provide for the removal of exemptions. As I have said, the appointed body should examine on a five-yearly basis all the methods of handling, stunning and slaughter of food animals to determine their humane effectiveness. I emphasise that all involved should approach the matter with open hearts and minds.
I am aware that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary currently has in train a detailed review of the way in which the present regulations are operated. If it were possible for her to watch over that sector for ever, I know that her caring approach would make the Bill unnecessary. But, naturally, that cannot be. The introduction of the code of practice, subject to regular five-yearly reviews, will mean that the latest and most humane techniques will be introduced into the slaughterhouse as of right, by changing into a duty the discretion currently given to the Minister under section 38 of the Act.
I am sure that, with regular reviews and continual active research by an appointed body, that will result in clear and firm guidelines. It will provide the most humane treatment possible for food animals at all times in what, understandably, is an emotionally bruising business
As I have not been officially approached by any hon. Member saying that he wishes to oppose the Bill, I look forward to the support of the whole House.

Mr. David Alton: I wish to say a few words before the matter is pressed further. I was reassured by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire South-West (Mr. Page)——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can only oppose the motion; he cannot debate the issue.

Mr. Alton: I had intended to oppose the motion and still wish to do so. However, I wanted to say that I was reassured by some of the remarks——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps interrupting today.

Mr. Skinner: I was raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When ten-minute rule Bills are debated, it has always been the common practice that one hon. Member introduces it and another hon. Member can be called upon to oppose it. A Liberal Member is trying to back both horses in the race, as usual. The result is that someone who was going to oppose the Bill on principle will not have the opportunity to put that case.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to calm down. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)


gave me notice before I came into the Chamber that he was seeking to speak against the Bill. I have no other such indication.

Mr. Alton: I did seek leave to speak against the Bill and I continue to seek leave to oppose it. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may not like it, but that is the right of any hon. Member. The reason why I am speaking against the Bill is that I am unsure of what the hon. Member—[Interruption.] It is clear from what the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West has just said that he is uncertain of what he wants the Bill to achieve. Considerable doubt will remain in the minds——

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made inquiries about whether the Bill would be opposed, since I wished to speak against it. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is plainly not opposing the Bill, would it be in order for you to call another hon. Member, perhaps the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) or myself?

Mr. Speaker: The House will recollect that I specifically asked the hon. Member for Mossley Hill whether he was seeking to speak against the Bill; he said that he was. Presumably he will.

Mr. Alton: In view of the occurrences of the last few days, it is clear that some Labour Members would prefer that Conservative Members were given the opportunity to speak in preference to a Liberal. I did give notice to you, Mr. Speaker, that I wished to speak against the Bill. That is what I propose to do.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council is currently carrying out an inquiry into this practice. Only recently, in a letter, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
The Council is at present considering the question of the welfare of red-meat animals at the place of slaughter. The Council is examining all slaughtering practices, including ritual methods. We will, of course, give most careful consideration to any recommendations which the Council may make as the result of its findings.
First, it is clearly premature while that kind of inquiry is being conducted to bring such a Bill before the House.
Secondly, the evidence that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West has adduced is at best contradictory. I refer him to the view of Professor Harold Burrow, the American professor of veterinary medicine at the Royal Veterinary College in London. He said:
No form of slaughter, involving as it does the shedding of blood, presents a pretty sight to the onlooker".
He went on to refer in regard to the ritual method of slaughter which Jewish and Moslem people use, to the
immediate loss of awareness on the part of the animal both of its surroundings and of any painful stimuli. This precludes any possibility of cruelty entering into Jewish ritual slaughter.
Shechita and halal in the Moslem religion are carried out by men who have undergone several years of religious training and study. Indeed, a declaration was issued by the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities which makes it clear that those who carry out ritual slaughter do so only with the most careful consideration. In the declaration, the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities of Great Britain say:
Schechita is carried out by men who have undergone several years of religious training and study who scrupulously apply the rules and rites governing this sacred ordinance, thus ensuring the swift and painless death of the animal.

That is the second point in opposition to the Bill. At best the evidence is contradictory.
The truth is that stunning and cutting are both horrible, but any society that eats meat must accept that animals will inevitably be slaughtered in abattoirs. The alternative is that we become a nation of vegetarians.
The question before the House is whether the method of slaughter is cruel. Kindness to animals has been a basic Jewish teaching for 3,000 years. All the biblical laws on the subject are designed to secure humane treatment for all animals and freedom from pain. The same is true of the Moslem religion as can easily be seen from the most cursory study of the Koran.
The effect on the Jewish and Moslem communities of passing the Bill would be severe. I have received a number of letters from Jewish people and from Moslems. The Council of Christians and Jews on Merseyside writes:
If it was passed … this Bill … would mean that traditionally-observant Jewish people would be denied the continued opportunity to eat meat because the special conditions applying to Shechita would be removed. If you read about this method you will observe that it has always been carried out in a humane way by skilled religious trained men".
That view is confirmed by the honorary president of the Merseyside Shechita Board. Passing the Bill would prevent many Moslem and Jewish people from exercising their religious rights and practices in the way they have done for thousands of years.
I am surprised that no discussions have taken place between the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and those communities, and that the hon. Gentleman did not even mention in his remarks that such discussions should take place. The Farm Animal Welfare Council's report is awaited. At the very least we should first see what that has to say.
I should have more sympathy with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West had he raised any number of examples of cruelty to animals. We should be debating the scientific experiments at Porton Down being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence, the use of animals in relation to cosmetics, the barbarism of hunting and the export of live animals for long and stressful sea journeys before being ritually slaughtered in conditions inferior to those in a British abattoir. The Bill before the House today is ill-considered and ill-timed and the House should reject it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):

The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 155.

Division No. 225]
[4 pm


AYES


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Roger


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Greenway, Harry


Body, Richard
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cartwright, John
Harvey, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Home Robertson, John


Coombs, Simon
Howells, Geraint


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Ellis, Raymond
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Flannery, Martin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCartney, Hugh


Forrester, John
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin






Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stokes, John


Pike, Peter
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Torney, Tom


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rowe, Andrew



Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. J. F. Pawsey and Mr. Christopher Murphy.


Stanbrook, Ivor





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, Dr John


Aitken, Jonathan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Deakins, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dobson, Frank


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Douglas, Dick


Baldry, Anthony
Dubs, Alfred


Barron, Kevin
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Beith, A. J.
Fallon, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Tony
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bermingham, Gerald
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fisher, Mark


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forth, Eric


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Franks, Cecil


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Freud, Clement


Bruce, Malcolm
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bruinvels, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce


Burt, Alistair
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butcher, John
Gorst, John


Campbell, Ian
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clay, Robert
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Haynes, Frank


Cohen, Harry
Hayward, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Heffer, Eric S.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.





Hind, Kenneth
Randall, Stuart


Holt, Richard
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hooson, Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hume, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Janner, Hon Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Jessel, Toby
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silvester, Fred


Knox, David
Skinner, Dennis


Lambie, David
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim
Spencer, Derek


Lord, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Loyden, Edward
Steen, Anthony


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


McNamara, Kevin
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


McWilliam, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Madden, Max
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Maxton, John
Terlezki, Stefan


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Malcolm


Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, R.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
White, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wshawe)
Whitfield, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Nellist, David
Wilkinson, John


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wood, Timothy


Brien, William
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Parry, Robert



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. David Alton and Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo.


Porter, Barry



Radice, Giles

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — London Regional Transport Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the order in which, on Consideration of the London Regional Transport Bill, New Clauses shall be taken shall be New Clause 7, New Clause 8, New Clause 9, New Clause 1, New Clause 2, New Clause 3, New Clause 11, New Clause 10, New Clause 4, New Clause 6, New Clause 12, other New Clauses.—[Mr. Ridley.]

New Clause 7

RESERVE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME FOR LONDON RESIDENTS

`(1) If immediately before 1st January in any accounting year of London Regional Transport it appears to London Regional Transport that there are not for the time being in force arrangements under section 48(1) of this Act for travel concessions for London residents which—

(a) meet the requirements of section (Requirements as to scope and uniformity of arrangements for travel concessions under section 48(1)) of this Act as to scope and uniformity; and
(b) will apply throughout the next following accounting year of London Regional Transport;

the following provisions of this section (referred to below in this section and in section (Supplementary provisions with respect to the free travel scheme) of this Act as the free travel scheme) shall apply to the next following accounting year.

(2) In any accounting year to which the free travel scheme applies it shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to grant, or (as the case may be) to exercise their control over any subsidiaries of theirs and their powers under Part I of this Act so as to secure that there are granted, the travel concessions for eligible London residents required by this section.

(3) In this section and sections (Supplementary provisions with respect to the free travel scheme) and (Requirements as to scope and uniformity of arrangements for travel concessions under section 48(1)) of this Act—
(a) references to eligible London residents are references to persons resident in Greater London who are eligible in accordance with section 48(7) of this Act to receive travel concessions under arrangements under subsection (1) of that section;
(b) references to categories of such residents are references to the categories of persons so eligible mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 48(7);
(c) "travel concession permit" means, in relation to a travel concession under any such arrangements or under this section, a document in any form indicating that the person to whom it is issued is a person entitled in accordance with those arrangements or (as the case may be) under this section to receive the concession in question;
(d) "relevant journey" means any journey of a description within section 48(4)(a), (b) or (c) of this Act; and
(e) references to any services under the control of London Regional Transport are references to any public passenger transport service provided by London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs or by any other person in pursuance of any agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act.

(4) The travel concession required by this section in the case of all eligible London residents in the blind persons' category is the waiver, on production of a travel concession permit issued to any such resident under section (Supplementary provisions with respect to the free travel scheme) of this Act, of any fare otherwise payable by the person to whom it was issued for any relevant journey on a service under the control of London Regional Transport.

(5) The travel concession required by this section in the case of all eligible London residents in any other category is the

waiver, on production of such a permit, of any fare otherwise payable by the person to whom it was issued for any such journey beginning—
(a) at any time on a Saturday or Sunday or on any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971; or
(b) in the daytime, evening or late-night off-peak period on any other day.

(6) Subject to subsection (7) below, for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (5) above—
(a) the daytime off-peak period is the period from 9.30 a.m. until 4.30 p.m.;
(b) the evening off-peak period is the period from 6.30 p.m. until midnight; and
(c) the late-night off-peak period is the period from midnight until 1.00 a.m.

(7) The daytime, evening or late-night off-peak period for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) above may be altered from time to time by London Regional Transport by notice published in such manner as they think fit, specifying the new period or periods and the effective date of the alteration.

(8) A notice under subsection (7) above may not specify an effective date for the alteration of a period to which it applies falling earlier than three months after the date of publication of the notice; and before publishing any such notice London Regional Transport shall consult with all London authorities (within the meaning of section 48 of this Act) and with the Passengers' Committee.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the new clause, in subsection (5)(b), leave out, evening'.

Amendment (b) to the new clause, in subsection (6) (a), leave out '4.30 p.m.' and insert 'midnight'.

Amendment (c) to the new clause, leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (6).

Amendment (d) to the new clause, in subsection (7), leave out, evening'.

Government new clause 8—Supplementary provisions with respect to the free travel scheme.

Government new clause 9—Requirements as to scope and uniformity of arrangements for travel concessions under section 48(1).

New clause 1—Travel concessions on journeys in and around London—
`(1) The Secretary of State shall instruct the London Regional Transport Board to grant travel concessions to those eligible to receive them, in accordance with subsection (4) below, such travel concessions being not less than those provided by the Greater London Council on the appointed day.
(2) The Secretary of State shall recover the cost of such concessions by a levy on the London Boroughs and the Common Council, which shall be a proportion of the rateable income of the local authority.
(3) No charge may be made upon any individual for the issue of any pass for such concessions.
(4) The persons eligible to receive travel concessions under arrangements made under subsection (1) above are persons mentioned in any of the following paragraphs, or any description of such persons, that is to say—
(a) men over the age of 65 years and women over the age of 60 years;
(b) blind persons, that is to say, persons so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which sight is essential;
(c) persons suffering from any disability or injury which, in the opinion of the local authority or any of the local authorities by whom the cost incurred in granting the concession falls to be reimbursed, impairs their ability to walk, or which makes it advisable or convenient for them to be accompanied.'.

New clause 2—Provisions for the operation of travel concessions by independent transport operators—
'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State

(1)(a) subject to subsection (2) below to consider any request received from a London authority in relation to the provision of travel concessions by an independent transport operator as defined in subsection 48(8) of this Act and, if he considers it appropriate, to direct such an operator to provide travel concessions to persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection 48(7) of this Act similar to those concessions which are from time to time available on services provided by London Regional Transport and the Railways Board;
(b) in relation to subsection (a) above, if he considers it appropriate, to give directions as to the maximum payments which may be made by a local authority to an independent transport service operator for the provision of travel concessions under this Section.
(2) No direction under subsection 1(a) above shall be made by the Secretary of State for the provision of travel concessions by any independent transport operator unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that financial provision for them will be made pursuant to subsections (1) and (3) of section 48 of this Act.'.

Amendment No. 31, in clause 48, page 45, line 31, leave out from 'below' to 'enter' in line 32 and insert `the local authorities which at present fall within the boundaries of the Greater London Council shall'.

Amendment No. 32, in clause 48, page 45, line 40, leave out from 'beginning' to 'reimburse' in line 42 and insert 'The local authorities concerned'. Government amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 40.

Mr. Ridley: We start the Report stage with the subject which has perhaps concerned the Opposition, indeed, the whole House, more than any other subject in the Bill—the future of concessionary fares for old and disadvantaged people in London. The issues in the Bill are great and important, and it is a pity that we have had to spend so much time on this in the Bill, especially since there was never any threat to the old person's bus pass. It was in fact the Greater London council's best hope of unseating the Bill, by frightening pensioners, and it exploited that ruthlessly.
The opposition to the Bill from the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench and their hon. Friends in Committee virtually collapsed after I announced on 16 February that we would provide a back-up scheme. Because of the scare campaign by the GLC, I must conclude that it was the only issue in which the Opposition saw any mileage at all. I find that sad, when one considers the important nature of the Bill.
It is strange that those who pressed so passionately for the passes, which we always believed and meant should be provided, have not even bothered to come today to listen to the debate. I can see only two Back Benchers on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Peter Snape: It is one more than the Government have.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friends were never in any doubt about the Government's pledge in the White Paper that the concessionary fare scheme would continue.
I must go through some of the details. London has an especially generous system of concessionary fares. I wish to give the figures, because they show exactly how generous it is. For London, the grant-related expenditure is £28·2 million, but the cost in 1983–84 was £60·5 million, just over twice the GRE. For the shire counties, the GRE for concessionary fares is £105·1 million, and in 1983–84 the expenditure was £57 million, just about half.

In rural areas, where old people have just as great a need, if not in many cases a greater need, to be able to travel from villages and remote areas, there is roughly one quarter the financial provisions.
So be it. If London wants to make this its priority—I believe that my hon. Friends representing London constituencies want to make it their priority—it shall be its priority, but, if that is the priority which is attached to the matter in London, it seems absolutely right that Londoners should pay for it, that it should come from the general resources of local government within the London borough areas, and that it should be treated like any other item of local authority expenditure in the future. Next year, it will grow to £65 million, due to further concessions that have been provided by the GLC, and that is a substantial amount of money. That is a priority that Londoners will have to find out of the total budgets of the boroughs when the GLC has been abolished.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wishes to disregard this expenditure under his new clause 3, which the House will debate at length on a later occasion.
It is totally unacceptable that the expenditure on concessionary fares should be outside the general controls of local authority spending to provide a statutory exemption for one sort of expenditure such as this from the general penalties incurred by local authorities. That would enable boroughs to increase their total expenditure to the detriment of the finances of other parts of the country.
As to the exact treatment—again, it may be better to dwell on this when the House debates new clause 3—as I said in Committee, it is impossible to be precise about the exact financial regime in which the boroughs will find themselves when the time comes for them to shoulder the burden of paying for concessionary fares. Two Acts of Parliament hence and two years hence we shall have a clearer picture.
However, I tried to give a sign of how matters would be when I said that we did not consider it right that there should be an increase in GREs because they apply nationally and are just about in the middle of the range for the national experience of spending. However, we would consider carefully the implications for the targets of the boroughs and their treatment for rate-capping purposes if, as I hope will not be the case, any of them come near to that. We shall, of course, try to preserve the method by which the rate yield of London is distributed from the richer to the poorer boroughs. However, we can debate those matters later.
The Labour party has always agreed that concessionary fares should be a local responsibility, as it said in a Green Paper of 1979. It is odd that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East now wishes to take them out of the items which make up the responsibility of local government and to give them special treatment. We should infinitely prefer a voluntary scheme agreed by the boroughs. However whether it is a voluntary scheme or a compulsory scheme introduced because of the fallback provision, the hon Gentleman must agree that concessionary fares should remain the responsibility of local government. I hope that these clauses will never be implemented and that the boroughs will come to a voluntary agreement.
New clauses 7, 8 and 9 contain the provisions which the Government suggest for the fallback scheme. They place a duty on LRT, if there is no uniform voluntary scheme in place, to provide a scheme for pensioners, the disabled


and the blind. Therefore, we are giving pensioners the reassurance that they need. The new clauses will for the first time ever give backing in statute to a London-wide concessionary fares scheme. They provide a watertight guarantee that old people and the disabled will be entitled to free off-peak travel in the future. Never before have a Government been prepared to enshrine concessionary fares in statute. The clauses go much further than anyone has been prepared to go previously. Pensioners have no such protection now, and the GLC could end the scheme tomorrow. These provisions will make that impossible.
Our free travel scheme will come into effect automatically as a fallback should the local authorities fail to agree a voluntary scheme. We do not expect that it will be necessary, as the London Boroughs Association has agreed in principle and is already discussing a voluntary scheme. However, some boroughs — members of the Association of London Authorities — have not been prepared to discuss the scheme, and the clauses will take effect if they remain unco-operative. The statutory scheme will allow pensioners and the disabled to travel free on LRT services at all times at weekends and bank holidays, and at off-peak times on weekdays—that is, on journeys starting between 9.30 am and 4.30 pm and after 6.30 pm until 1 am the following morning. The scheme will apply to travel on buses and underground services. Blind people will have the right to travel free at all times.
New clause 7 establishes the details of the free travel scheme. It places a duty on LRT to provide the scheme if, by the beginning of any year, it appears to LRT that a uniform voluntary scheme will not be in place during the following financial year. The new clause establishes the nature of the statutory scheme by specifying the categories of people to whom it will apply, the services on which the concessions will be available, the nature of the concession, and the times at which it will be available to those eligible for it.
New clause 8 provides for the various administrative procedures governing the free travel scheme. It establishes the way in which LRT will make available permits to the London borough councils and the basis on which LRT will charge for them. It specifies how and when the issuing authorities will pay LRT for permits which they issue and provides a method by which they must account to LRT for the use of the permits supplied to them.
New clause 9 lays down the circumstances that must be satisfied to bring the new statutory scheme into effect. As I said, it will come into effect only if no uniform voluntary scheme is in place. The purpose of new clause 9 is to specify exactly what is meant by "uniform" in this context. Broadly speaking, the voluntary scheme must provide the same benefits to the same eligible categories of persons and must apply the same conditions and the same periods of validity.
Government amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are consequential on clause 47, but Government amendment No. 40 presents a slightly new point. It prevents LRT from having to grant concessions on the services of independent operators which were in existence before they came under clause 3(2). Once they come under clause 3(2), the conditions in the Bill will apply to them, but there could be—although I know of only one case—a transitional need to exclude some services already in existence.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)—whom I am glad to see back with us in good fettle again — contain defects which I hope will make him believe that the Government's new clauses are superior. Amendment No. 31 provides for the coercion of local authorities to provide a scheme without giving them the chance to come to a voluntary agreement. It does not provide for unanimity — it would be possible under the hon. Gentleman's amendments for each borough to negotiate a different scheme with different benefits—which is one of the good features of the scheme that I am putting before the House this afternoon. It also prevents, I believe accidentally, local authorities outside Greater London from buying bus passes or concessionary fare passes from LRT. Amendment No. 33, which we shall discuss later, deals with the financial consequences for local authorities. I have already given my views about that. The amendment is unacceptable, but the hon. Gentleman might wish to discuss it in more detail when we debate new clause 3.
New clauses 1 and 2 are also largely superseded by the Government's provisions, and they have many defects. I shall not dwell on the drafting deficiencies — for example, the new clauses do not show how the costs of the scheme will be calculated—and I do not agree with their substance, since they provide for a compulsory scheme with no opportunity for the boroughs to come to a voluntary agreement in the first place. Worst of all, they guarantee the continuance of whatever scheme the GLC leaves in place on the appointed day. The opportunities for the GLC to widen the scheme between now and the appointed day to unprecedented costs and privileges are so obvious that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will not wish to press those new clauses. They are also designed to relieve the boroughs' expenditure from the grant penalties and financial consequences of overspending. Indeed, new clause 1 disallows local discretion in any reasonable charging for the permits.
New clause 2 is misconceived. If the local authority is prepared to pay for concessions, operators will provide them. There is no question but that LRT will provide the bus passes, and there is no need to force it to do so. Local authorities and operators are quite able to come to financial agreement among themselves about the cost of bus passes. To legislate about this would be unnecessary.
Our scheme——

Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State appears to have misunderstood the clause. New clause 2 is concerned with independent transport operators, who will not necessarily be in any agreement with LRT. Presumably they could have obtained a road service licence from the traffic commissioners. Who secures agreement with that kind of bus operator?

Mr. Ridley: If they come under clause 3(2), which we debated at length in Committee, the concessionary fares scheme can apply. If they are in existence now and have not yet been brought under clause 3(2), our amendment No. 40, I think rightly, excludes them because they are operating on contracts which did not include that requirement at the time that the contracts were negotiated.
There is, however, no reason why any local authority, if it so wishes, should not negotiate extra concessionary benefits, either over and above the statutory scheme, if it comes into effect, or with operators who are outside it.
I believe our scheme to be superior. It is backed by statute, as no scheme has ever been before. It has powers to prevent the boroughs or the GLC from charging a heavy fee for bus passes. No powers of that sort exist at present in relation to London or anywhere else. It concentrates on off-peak periods—9.30 am to 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm to 1 am. That in itself will save the ratepayers £10 million in a full year. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it is right to keep the concessionary fare scheme to off-peak periods. It is pointless to encourage pensioners to travel when commuters are going to and from work. The origin of the concessionary fares scheme for old people was the fact that in the middle of the day buses were running three-quarters empty. To suggest that the concessions be now extended to peak times seems to me to deny both the logic and the economics of the scheme.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, in his amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d), seeks to abolish the afternoon peak as a period when pensioners are barred from free travel—though not, of course, from travel. However, that would cost a further £4 million on the buses, and I believe it to be unnecessary. There is no point in encouraging pensioners to travel at peak times, even though there may be room occasionally. It discourages commuters from relying on the bus and makes them take their cars instead.
We have powers to alter the peak hours if habits change. If it becomes possible to narrow the peak or change its timing, there are automatic powers in the new clauses to change the definition of peak times.
I hope that the GLC will now stop flogging this dead horse. My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in London are sick of having continually to reassure people, even after 16 February when I made it clear that the Government would bring these clauses forward. On 22 February, the GLC issued a press release saying that if the GLC scheme were transferred to the London borough councils as the Government wished, pensioners' rights were likely to be severely jeopardised. That is simply not true. On 26 March, in an advertisement in The Guardian, the GLC said that old-age pensioners' free travel would certainly be hit. It is not true. In the last few days the GLC has said:
The Government has refused to place a legal duty on the boroughs to provide free travel for pensioners.
That is from a GLC broadsheet dated 27 March.
What worries me is that, despite all that has been said during many hours in Committee and during the Second Reading of the Bill by way of continued assurances, the GLC can still get it so wrong as to say that the Government have refused to place a legal duty on the boroughs. Here it is, the legal duty, just as we always said it would be. I hope that the GLC will now shut up.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as recently as last week, individuals supporting a movement called "Capital" which is run by ex-Labour Members of the House were hanging about outside Barons Court and West Brompton underground stations in my constituency, telling users that the stations were to be closed, despite statements several weeks ago by both my right hon. Friend and London Transport?

Mr. Ridley: This is the sort of reason for which the House set up the Advertising Standards Authority. One of the requirements of advertisements is that they should be vaguely true. I can assure my hon. Friend that not one of the GLC's statements about this Bill would have passed any of the tests of the ASA. If it puts up any posters of that sort, I will make sure that they are referred to that body.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the flagrantly disgusting behaviour of the GLC in trying to frighten the living daylights out of old-age pensioners about their free travel concession has totally obscured the perfectly rational and perhaps reasonable arguments in favour of a London-wide authority? Is this not a reason why Her Majesty's Government feel it necessary to do away with the GLC, because it has been so abusing its powers?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is, as usual, absolutely right. The campaign against this Bill, on the GLC's own admission, cost £1 million last year and £1 million for the first quarter of this year, and for May alone a further El million has been allocated. That £3 million could have been used to help the old, the disabled and many other people living in London or, if the council had not wanted to do that, the money could have been left in the pockets of the ratepayers. Using the ratepayers' money to try to scare people quite unnecessarily is a most despicable tactic. As my hon. Friend said, if anything reinforces the case for abolishing the GLC, it is its conduct during the passage of this Bill.
I am happy to give pensioners the reassurance that they want and need—that all that the GLC has been trying to do is to cause them anxiety and worry unnecessarily.

Mr. Prescott: If pensioners and others presently enjoying a free pass look to any assurance from the Secretary of State's speech, I am bound to say that they will not receive it. The reality is to compare what the GLC currently gives to the people on free passes with what the clauses before us today will give them. That is the acrid test; not all the rhetoric that has been given us from the Dispatch Box.
The Minister has been talking about the ratepayers' interests yet, at the same time, posing in the Bill the possibility that 100 per cent. of the costs of transport can be put on to the ratepayers of London. That is what is in the Bill. If we take the maximum 66 per cent. and the other little clauses that go with it, it is possible that the full amount of transport costs can be put on to the ratepayers. For the right hon. Gentleman to be abolishing the elections by the ratepayers and yet speaking at the Box as if defending democracy and the ratepayers flies against all the evidence.
What we are asked to consider in these clauses and in the amendments is the comparison between two systems. It tends to reflect what we have always felt about the present transport legislation, where we give the transport executive the responsibility of meeting the needs of Londoners, compared with what we are doing in the Bill, where the executive body—London Regional Transport —has merely to have due regard to them.
We must consider what is meant by "due regard to" and "transport needs". We must study the speeches made on Second Reading on 13 December by the Secretary of State and others about provisions for pensioners and what the


Secretary of State said today about referring the GLC's statements to the advertising board, or whatever it may be, to see whether they meant what they were saying then.
On 13 December the Secretary of State was being pressed by both sides of the House to make it clear that it would be the responsibility of local authorities to provide a uniform concessionary fare scheme in London. He said:
I give my hon. Friend a complete assurance that I agree with him about the importance of these passes. However, I am not prepared to say that it would be right for the Government to propose legislation to take away what is properly a function of local government. Moreover, it would be wrong to do so in the Bill, because this is a part of the social provision of local government."— [Official Report, 13 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 871.]
As that has been changed in the Bill, it represents a U-turn by the Secretary of State. We are prepared to welcome the change, because we are worried that London boroughs will not necessarily face their responsibilities and provide a uniform scheme. The new clauses make it clear that, if the boroughs do not arrange with London Regional Transport to provide a uniform scheme, the Secretary of State can use the powers provided in the clauses to ensure that there will be a uniform scheme. We shall have a local authority service financed by the local authority but controlled by the Secretary of State. The nationalisation of London Regional Transport will deny the ratepayers any possibility of exercising direct control over it as they can at present over a local authority's expenditure.
More than 1 million people benefit from the present free passes. They are mostly pensioners—men over 65 and women over 60 — the blind, the disabled and those whose ability to move about is impaired. We must compare what they have and what they will be given under the Bill. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to extend the scheme to include the unemployed. I understand that Brighton borough council and some Labour-controlled authorities have done so. I am also sorry that he has not extended the scheme further in respect of certain categories of disabled people. He has not, and therefore we must deal with the Bill as it is.
The new clauses change the hours during which the free pass can be used. It will no longer be valid between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm, although the boroughs will be able to negotiate a change with London Regional Transport. That will mean that London Regional Transport will have to negotiate with more than 30 other bodies if it is to provide that so-called uniform scheme.
Pensioners will be denied that peak evening period. It is one of the most valuable times to pensioners, because many of them have to go to hospitals, go shopping, visit their families and get home before dark. We know from our debates in Committee that LRT will not have to provide more buses or underground services to meet the extra demand. It would not lead to extra capital expenditure, but it would lead to more people travelling. The Secretary of State argues that it would cost an extra £4 million to provide what people entitled to concessionary travel presently enjoy. That is a judgment that we must all make. It cannot be denied that the proposal will weaken the principle and lower the service.
4.45 pm
New clause 7(7) enables the local authorities to negotiate the times. Presumably they can be decreased or increased. It depends on the interpretation of "uniform scheme".
Can the scheme still be considered free? There will be no charge for travelling, but there will be a charge for the provision of the pass. The borough of Bromley is already suggesting £5. Although it can be argued that expense is involved in providing the pass, it will inevitably become a charge to the pensioner, who now has the privilege of a free pass on the London Transport system. There is the possibility, therefore, of the introduction of a charge, albeit limited, to enable people to enjoy the benefit.
The Secretary of State has said that there can be negotiations about a different system. The GLC is studying the possibility of issuing a five-year pass. Compared with providing a pass every one or two years, the cost of that would go down from £1 million to £250,000. The Secretary of State's proposal will inevitably lead to more people being involved, and more bureaucracy. That is contrary to his attitude towards bureaucracy and civil servants.
There has not been an extension of the present system, for example, to the unemployed, so I am prepared to argue the case on what is presently provided. The uniform scheme proposed in the new clauses will result in a reduction in the availability of the services, the time at which people can travel and the possibility of charges.
There are other serious deficiencies in the Bill to which the Secretary of State has not addressed himself. He gave certain answers in Committee, but I should like to raise the points again. Parts of London are covered by British Rail, and people are therefore dependent upon surface railways. The GLC has an arrangement with British Rail whereby its half-price away-day tickets are available to people with GLC passes. They can therefore enjoy a concessionary scheme, although the fares are higher than on London Transport. To its credit, the GLC attempted to achieve some uniformity of prices between London Transport and British Rail, but the Department of Transport made it clear that if any subsidies were used to reduce the fares for pensioners, the Department would knock the amount off the public service obligation grant given to British Rail.
I have today received a copy of a letter which shows the effect of the new clauses and the Government's attitude towards British Rail. We have not heard from the Secretary of State whether he is prepared to retain the present half-price away-day concession which the GLC has negotiated with British Rail. The letter was sent by Mr. David Kirby, who is the director of the London and South-East services of British Rail, to the GLC about concessionary fares. The GLC had asked whether British Rail would be prepared to reach an agreement whereby free travel could be available for old-age pensioners on British Rail. Mr. Kirby says that British Rail
were waiting to see if the Government made any similar arrangements in relation to BR
for a concessionary fare scheme. Is the Secretary of State prepared to do anything about the British Rail scheme?
Mr. Kirby makes it clear that
the Government would be unlikely to support a free fare scheme for OAP's on B.R. in the future.
British Rail clearly has a view about what the Government are likely to do; that is, to do little for those who depend upon British Rail for their travel. To that extent, British


upon British Rail for their travel. To that extent, British Rail has rejected the possibility of a GLC scheme that would have allowed London pensioners to enjoy free fares on trains. Already, organisations such as British Rail are beginning to trim their sails and are not considering providing better benefits for pensioners who travel with them.
Mr. Kirby says in the last paragraph of his letter that
we would however be delighted to continue with a half fare scheme for senior citizens within London.
Of course he would like to do that. The GLC at least is prepared to maintain that principle, but what are the Government prepared to do? We must hear from the Minister of State, who I assume will reply to the debate, whether old-age pensioners who currently enjoy the concessionary fares will be able to enjoy them on British Rail services.
I should have thought that the integration of fares was one of the reasons put forward by the Government for introducing later clauses under which British Rail will be combined with the London Regional Transport system. The Government should say exactly what the clauses mean for those categories of pensioners who presently enjoy the privilege of free passes on British Rail services but who are threatened because the clauses give no such guarantee.
The Secretary of State seemed to misunderstand new clause 2, so he did not say much of benefit about it. It refers to the independent transport operators, who would need a road service licence from the traffic commissioners to provide a service in the stage area of London. At present that requires the agreement of the London Transport Executive although, as we know, the inspectors have been ruling against the provision of services such as the shuttle service to Heathrow and the Amos services.
All the evidence is that the Secretary of State will ride roughshod over the recommendations and the reasons given for them. Therefore, the Opposition's concern—it will be further apparent in later debates on the Bill—is that anyone wishing to provide a bus service in London can apply independently to the traffic commissioners for a licence to run buses in the London area and will not be bound by the clause to provide any sort of concessionary system.
The Secretary of State's response is that private operators can negotiate with the local authorities to see whether they can purchase the same service. Negotiations between the 32 London borough have caused so many problems that the Secretary of State has introduced a statutorily enforceable scheme into the Bill. One can imagine the problems faced by the dozens of private bus operators. They will probably not bother to negotiate with local authorities about pensioners' provisions when much more profit can be made from plying profitable routes at peak times, which is likely in view of the Bill.
It is Government policy to intervene and bring more competition into the stage carriage area. It is inevitable that more services will operate under a private banner, and they will not be obliged to provide a concessionary scheme. The London bus service of the future will be known more as the pensioners' bus, on which pensioners can use their passes. A first-class service will be operated in the area by a private operator, but there is no guarantee under the existing system that, if pensioners live on a route operated by privately operated buses, they will be able to use their concessionary passes.
New clause 2 has been tabled to make it clear that the Secretary of State, who already has considerable powers to direct the policy, shall so direct private and independent operators to provide a service, including a concessionary service. For other private operators, including those in agreement with LRT, the routes will presumably be conditional upon agreement between LRT and private groups.
If the Bill allows for private agreements with LRT to provide a route from A to B that will carry with it the cost of providing some form of concessionary scheme, why should private operators take on such problems when they can get a licence from the traffic commissioners and operate on the same routes without having to pick up old-age pensioners, whenever they travel? Private operators could operate their services much more profitably without taking pensioners into account.
Those examples of the operation of agreements between LRT and private operators all reflect the doubtful effect of the clauses on the free pass system.
The equalisation principle is another matter of considerable concern, and it was given some attention by the Secretary of State. There is no guarantee for the existing financing arrangements for the concessionary pass scheme set up by equalisation arrangement between all the London boroughs. Both Labour and Tory authorities make it clear that the equalisation scheme is a fair way to carry the costs of transport provisions, but it is not embodied in the Bill.
The Secretary of State has told us that the equalisation scheme costs about £60 million to operate. I believe that that is a 3p rate on the GLC, which is distributed in an equalised form throughout the boroughs, in payments at the same rate. The need for passes and the areas in which pensioners are concentrated, or where passes will be purchased, are not evenly distributed throughout the boroughs. Anyone studying the distribution of pensioners in the London area can easily conclude that some boroughs have more pensioners living in them than, say, the City or Westminster, using the various comparisons between the 32 boroughs.
If the authorities had to pay a charge dependent upon the scale of need in their area, reflected in the number of people likely to claim concessions, boroughs such as Waltham Forest would face a rate increase of between 3p and 7p. Bromley—we feel no sympathy for Bromley—would have its rate increased by from 3p to 5·3p. Bromley would probably want socialisation to result; a sort of equalisation principle under which the wealthier would pay for those whose need is greatest. In that way, the wealthier parts of the City, such as the banks, City institutions and multinational companies would have their debt relieved, whereas it would be increased where pensioners needs' were greatest.
All that the Bill does is to redistribute benefits from the wealthy to the poorer areas of London. That is embodied in the principle of equalisation. Unless the Secretary of State is prepared to recognise that an equalisation principle is essential, he will suceed only in adding greater burdens to boroughs already under pressure to direct their resources to welfare provisions. It is clear that if pensioners are concentrated in certain areas they put considerable demands on the boroughs for welfare facilities, which in turn increases pressure on those boroughs.
The paper that was circulated to Standing Committee Members contained comments on the Bill by the


Conservative group on the GLC. It makes it clear that an equalisation principle is essential and says that 27 of the 32 London boroughs will require a rate increase for the payment of concessionary fares on an individual basis because of the loss of the equalisation effect on the London-wide rate precept. Whether boroughs are Labour or Tory-controlled, a case has been made for the equalisation principle, but the Government have ridden roughshod over it. A further disadvantage would thus arise from the Bill.
5 pm
The amendments are designed to provide an opportunity for the House to maintain a good system guaranteed by the GLC or to vote for one that reduces the provision already enjoyed in the London area by pensioners and others. London Tory MPs should be clear about what they are voting for tonight. Hon. Members from all round the country, will be determining what the quality of local services should be for a particular area. In the rest of the country, that is normally determined by the ratepayers and those elected by them.

Mr. Stevens: Is it not the case that the Government originally planned to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman desires—to leave it to the London boroughs, the local authorities, to do what seemed to them right for concessionary fares? As a result of pressure from all parts of the Committee on the Secretary of State, the change was made. For the first time — anyone would think that it was the last time — in history a Government have introduced statutory provisions for concessionary fares. The Secretary of State responded to what we wanted. I dare say that he was not too happy about it, but he did it. Now the hon. Gentleman is saying that he should have left it to the London boroughs, which was his original intention.

Mr. Prescott: That was a clever little speech. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to the Secretary of State, who told us in Committee that, with the agreement of Conservative Back Benchers, he had not changed his position. It was his full intention to have this statutory scheme from the beginning. That was the whole point of the Secretary of State's speech. Some Back Benchers spoke to convince us that that was so. At least the hon. Gentleman has told us what he believed to be the position. The Opposition believe that it should be left to the local authorities to determine the services and that the elected representatives should be answerable to the electorate when they determine and provide services.
The Government intend to abolish elections, seek to impose a central system, and then argue that the cost should be met by the local authorities. That is a poor way of dealing with the matter. We must address our arguments to the present Bill, not to the Bill as we wish it to be.
We now know the difference between a free pass and a concessionary clause. To the Tories, a concession is less than a free pass. We oppose the new clause because it reduces the time when the concession applies at crucial parts of the day, reduces the area of coverage and is no longer applicable to half-fare travel on British Rail. The new clause establishes a first and second-class service on London buses. The London bus, as opposed to the private bus, will become known as the pensioners' free pass bus.

It institutes the concept of meeting Londoners' needs while making a profit. It introduces changes and charges in the system and greater bureaucracy. Because of the refusal to equalise the cost, the areas with the greatest need will carry the greatest burden. Once again the pensioners will have to carry the burden, while the burden of the wealthy parts of the City will be reduced. Every 1 per cent. increase in fares will lead to a £250,000 increase in the cost of concessionary schemes.
All the disadvantages in the Bill can be compared to the one advantage in it—that the pensioner will now be able to travel free from midnight to 1 o'clock in the morning. I do not know whether Conservative Members know many pensioners who want to travel from midnight to 1 o'clock in the morning. That is not a fair exchange for the disadvantages embodied in the new clause. When we vote, let London Members be sure about the differences and the reduction of services that they will impose on the London pensioner.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am glad to take part in this debate because it deals with the most controversial part of the whole Bill. It is the part that will be remembered longest, not least by the people of London, but especially by pensioners, disabled and blind people, who will now have a statutory right to concessionary fares that has never been enjoyed before.
I applaud the Government's decision to introduce the new clauses. We have had an argument over mechanics, not objectives. The Government initially felt that such provisions were not necessary in the Bill because the Greater London council continues, and changes would be required only if and when Parliament decided to abolish the GLC. Therefore, there was a certain academic nature to the question. There was some force in this argument, although it was an academic argument. It could be said that this Bill is not the right vehicle for preserving concessionary fares for pensioners. I say loud and clear that, had the Government pursued that course, it would have been misunderstood because people believe that a Bill specifically dealing with the jurisdiction of London Transport is the right measure in which to ensure and guarantee concessionary fares. This precedent is important, and it will long be remembered.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, who listened so patiently and with such courtesy to the arguments put forward eloquently and forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) —at the other end of the line, as I describe him—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and myself. I believe that we three were particularly instrumental in getting the change through. The way in which the Government addressed themselves to the difficult task of translating our objective into what was required in legislative form was exemplary.
The Government were right to deal with this important matter on Report, when all hon. Members could discuss its import and impact on their constituents. It was a formidable piece of drafting. I should not have liked to do it myself. I am glad to have been able to defer to the legislative experts in the Department and in the Government.
I do not believe that a concessionary fares scheme enshrined in statute is in any way a poor substitute for a totally discretionary scheme, even if one has to buy one's concessionary pass and even if old-age pensioners,


disabled and blind people will not be able to travel free in the evening peak hour. I still do not believe that it is an unfair exchange. It is a generous provision by the Government. That it should bind successor Governments and London Regional Transport in this way is commendable and important.
With regard to the evening peak, GLC does not permit free travel at the morning peak, so I cannot see the logic in not applying the same rule in the evening peak. It is just as important for tired people who have had a hard day in the office to get home in reasonable comfort at the evening peak as it is for them to get to work in the morning.
I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He was worried that there might be a curfew for old-age pensioners. I suggest that they should take advantage of the change and stay with their relatives for tea, or if they cannot do so. they could go home a little earlier. It is not unreasonable. I am sure that the country will not judge it as such. Londoners will not, any more than they will deem it unreasonable if they have to pay to obtain their pass. Often people say that we are extremely lucky to have the concessionary fares scheme. We appreciate and value it. I am sure that people would be prepared to pay the little that was required for the administrative cost of the pass.
Then, of course, we must not forget, in our understandable preoccupation with the evening peak and rush-hour travelling during the week, that old-age pensioners and disabled and blind people will be able to travel free throughout the weekend and at bank holidays.
Regarding the point made by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East about free passes for the unemployed, no doubt his intention was laudable and commendable, but to translate such generosity of intention into the financial commitment involved would be excessive. I just do not believe that it would be administratively possible in view of the very often—thank God — transient nature of people's unemployed status. There would be a potential for fraud, apart from anything else.
So, without wishing to derogate in any way from the warm plaudits and generous support that I give to the Government for the way they have handled this measure, I believe that the Conservative GLC members have a point when they refer to the equalisation issue, in that the demographic nature of the London boroughs is not the same. Some have very high populations of pensioners, others do not; some have very high rateable values, others do not. This is the area that worries me a little—not so much in connection with this Bill, but it is the sort of anxiety that we should address ourselves to examine and analyse when we come to look at what legislative arrangements will have to be made after the Greater London council is abolished. It is the sort of argument that lends support to the view that there will be a need for a London-wide elected authority of some kind to fulfil those London-wide functions that will need still to be carried through.
That said, I warmly support these new clauses introduced by the Government and am delighted to do so.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I do not think that any apology is needed for my presuming to take part in the Report stage when I was not a member of the Committee on the Bill. I have an interest, of course, as a London Member, but I also have an individual interest in that I was

among the first London Members of any party to appreciate that there was a problem here. I will come to that in a moment.
The Minister said that these new clauses provided the reassurance that pensioners needed, and those words represent a really big change of mind and heart on his part. This shows that he and the Government—and, I hope, the whole House — recognise that pensioners need reassurance. They have needed this reassurance not since the beginning of a campaign started and egged on by the GLC but since May 1983.
In the first week of the general election campaign I was canvassing—like all other hon. Members, no doubt—in my constituency, when I came across a household with a pensioner couple who asked me rather excitedly if I had seen that the Conservatives intended to abolish the GLC. I said that I had. I had not thought very much about the consequences of that, but naturally I said that I was opposed to it. They then asked me what would happen about their bus passes and I replied that I did not know but would make some inquiries.
I got hold of a copy of the Conservative election manifesto—not just the one put out by my Conservative opponent—and found to my surprise that, although the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan councils was very clearly set out in relatively few words, there was not a word about the future of the free bus and tube travel passes.
I naturally notified my own political colleagues, both in London and in other areas of the country, and in my own constituency I put out a leaflet warning pensioners that this could be one of the casualties of the abolition of the GLC. But even at that stage I do not think that it was really an issue in the general election campaign. Many pensioners and other citizens of London were not really aware of the full implications.
Indeed, I do not believe that the Government, when they put the pledge to abolish the GLC — it was probably a hasty, last-minute decision — into their manifesto, had worked out the full consequences of the abolition of the GLC. Had they done so, they would surely have prepared a defensive brief for Conservative candidates in the London area and perhaps in the areas of the metropolitan councils, pointing out what was going to happen to the free bus and tube pass. But nothing at all was said about this by any national or local Conservative speaker during the general election campaign.
5.15 pm
The worries of pensioners, quite rightly, gradually spread, because when the Government were returned to power in June they put more and more emphasis on the abolition of the GLC, and, whatever pensioners may or may not think about the GLC, I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that they certainly love their free bus and tube passes. I believe that it is agreed on both sides of the House that this has probably been the biggest boon and blessing to pensioners since the 1940s and the inception of the welfare state. It has certainly made a great deal of difference to their lives. I do not want to delay the House by expatiating on the merits of the pensioners' free bus and tube passes. I think that we all agree about that.
The Conservative threats to abolish the GLC produced this considerable worry and concern in pensioners' minds even before the GLC decided to mount a great campaign on this issue. The campaign by the pensioners has built up,


and they had every reason to be worried from May 1983 virtually until the early part of this year, when the Secretary of State announced that he would be making some concessions.
The scheme which the right hon. Gentleman has announced is to be backed by statute. That certainly represents a major change of mind, if not a climb-down, by the Secretary of State, for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) pointed out what the right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Harry Greenway: On the question of how Conservative candidates handled this crucial issue in the general election campaign, I said from day one that I was certain that, with the removal of London Transport from the GLC, concessionary passes for all categories would continue. I stand by that, and I raised it before anybody else on Second Reading of the Bill. I am very pleased that the Government are ensuring just that. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman no doubt had access to information which the Conservatives had from the Government but to which I was not party. I could not have given any such assurances. I would not have presumed to do so, since I had no idea what the impact would be. The hon. Gentleman, no matter what assurances he gave, must recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, the scheme now to be embodied in the statute is not the same as the current scheme.
The pensioners were certainly aided in their campaign by the GLC, but I think that Ministers and other Conservative Members would be doing themselves an injustice if they underestimated the fight which pensioners have put up in London to get the assurances that they felt they needed—some of which they have had from the Minister, although not enough, in my view. Those reassurances have been gained not by the GLC campaign but by pensioner power; I stress that.
We should all congratulate the pensioners of London, whatever their political views, on the fight that they have put up with all hon. Members to retain their free travel concession. They have done a marvellous job and I hope that they will be emboldened—I am sure they will be—by their relative success in this campaign. They have not got all that we would like them to have, but they have got 90 per cent. of it; there are still some difficulties about peak periods, and so on.

Mr. Martin Stevens: The hon. Gentleman has told us that, during the general election campaign, when he heard that the GLC was to be abolished, he wrote to his constituents and told them that the future of the concessionary fares, the pensioners' free passes, was in doubt. Can he assure the House that he genuinely thought at that time that that was so?

Mr. Deakins: I did not just write to the constituents concerned. I actually produced on our little lithograph press a rather poorly set out leaflet warning pensioners of the possible consequences of the abolition of the GLC in the absence of any assurance to the contrary in the Conservative manifesto. I first studied the Conservative

manifesto to ensure that nothing that I said could be belied by a statement in that manifesto, but no such statement was made in it.
I hope that the pensioners, following their success on this issue, will go forward with the pensioners' charter and other rights, including better pensions. Now that they have shown what can be done, not just in London but throughout the country, I hope that they will go on to mount campaigns on other issues of major interest to pensioners.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East pointed out, although some reassurance has been given to pensioners, it is not complete, because the evening peak concession will not be put into statutory form. I understand that the GLC was considering allowing passes to be used earlier in the morning. That would not have made it a completely free 24-hour scheme, but the GLC clearly intended to move in the right direction, whereas the Government, although they are putting the matter into statutory form, are moving in the wrong direction and away from the concessions already made.
The Minister said that free or nearly free travel schemes really applied only to off-peak travel. It is in the economics of transport that when buses and tube trains are half-empty they can be filled with pensioners visiting friends and relatives, shopping, and so on. That is all very well, but the Minister missed the important point that pensioners do not choose to travel in the rush hour. It would scarcely be sensible for them voluntarily to choose to travel at such times. Those of us who have to do so know that the buses and tube trains are extremely crowded and uncomfortable, and even if the pensioner does not have a trolley or heavy shopping bag there is no guarantee in these days of equality that anyone will necessarily offer him or her a seat. I put it to the Minister sincerely that pensioners will not travel in peak periods unless they have a compelling reason to do so, such as visiting a sick relative in hospital in another part of London and being unable to get back before the rush hour. They will now face the choice that they faced before the major London-wide scheme was introduced, of having to delay their departure or to cut the visit short so as to beat the evening peak.
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider. It will cost a little more, but I do not believe that it will encourage pensioners to travel in peak periods if they do not absolutely have to do so.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman entirely overlooks the enormous difference in cost between issuing passes that cannot be used in peak periods and issuing them on an overall full-day basis. The Government's proposal will mean a considerable saving for the taxpayer and ratepayer. As the hon. Gentleman said, it will merely mean that when, very occasionally, pensioners need to travel at such times, they will have to pay an unfortunate but luckily quite small penalty in extra cost.

Mr. Deakins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I believe that he agrees that few pensioners would choose to travel in peak periods. For those who must do so, however, it is a source of worry. Many pensioners have told me that they have to delay their visit or their return until after the peak period. Indeed, a pensioner uncle of mine who used to live in my former home area of Tottenham—he now lives in Scotland—would come to


visit me in central London at 2 pm or 3 pm but if he had not left by 4.30 pm he would ask whether he could stay for another cup of tea so that he did not have to walk the streets until 7 pm when free travel was available again. Conservatives may not agree, but I believe that it is worth removing that anxiety, even at some extra cost.
Thirdly, I understand that the statutory concession announced by the Minister applies only to pensioners in London and is not available to those in other parts of the country. I hope that the Minister will correct me at once if I am wrong, but I believe that there are no such statutory provisions for transport undertakings in the rest of the country. I wonder how the Minister will justify that to the pensioners in the metropolitan counties. I hope that she will be able to assure us that the Department of Transport —with the Department of the Environment, which is the lead Department in this instance — will consider that aspect between now and next year if and when legislation to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties is introduced. We fully support the concession, but it seems wrong to grant it for pensioners in London and to deny it to those in the metropolitan counties.
Finally, on what basis can the Government justify denying a statutory concession for pensioners outside the metropolitan areas? The Government should consider this seriously, as the pensioners of London have not merely been selfishly concerned about their own passes. On every possible occasion, they have raised the subject of their relatives and others whom they know outside London who do not have such a concession. One does not need to go very far outside London to find areas, not necessarily rural areas, where that is the case. Now that the Secretary of State has put his hand to the plough and is ploughing a furrow that most people in London support, although it does not go as far as we should like, I hope that he will seriously consider the case for making the same provision throughout the country.

Mr. John Maples: The subject of concessionary travel passes for pensioners occupied a great deal of time in the Standing Committee and attracted almost all the publicity and discussion outside. When the Bill was first published, the provision for boroughs to agree a voluntary scheme was considered insufficient and there were calls for some back-up compulsion. The Government have now provided that. The new clauses provide that if the boroughs cannot agree, a compulsory back-up scheme will be enforced under the legislation.
It is perhaps a measure of how far the Government have gone that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) did not actually criticise the scheme at all but concentrated his arguments on more peripheral matters such as the question of British Rail and contractors and the way in which the rate equalisation scheme might need to be adjusted. That suggests that the Government have indeed met all the criticisms and all the requirements made of them.
It is worth reviewing the history of the scheme briefly, as it has not been entrenched since time immemorial. Many of the changes so hotly debated are extremely recent. I believe that the scheme was started in the early 1970s by certain London boroughs and was taken over by the GLC in 1973. It was extended to the tube in 1976, with a 20p flat fare, and fully extended to the tube only in May 1981, when the present GLC administration took over. The extension of the scheme to the evening peak took

place just over a year ago, on 28 March 1983, so that concession has certainly not been in existence since time immemorial.
5.30 pm
Those changes have cost a lot of money. With such schemes, it is always worth looking at what they cost. It is easy to devise schemes that are popular with, and useful to, certain sections of the community. We have heard it suggested today that the scheme should be extended to include the unemployed or pensioners in the whole country. However, no one who makes those suggestions adds up what the cost will be for the ratepayer and the taxpayer.
When the scheme was first taken over by the GLC in 1974 it cost £9 million. Last year it cost £62 million. That is a substantial increase. Adjusted for inflation, the cost has risen at 1980 prices from £21·5 million in 1974 to £50 million last year. That is an enormous real increase. The cost has more than doubled.
It is interesting to note that, after the scheme had matured at the end of 1975, the cost remained at about £30 million in real terms until 1982, when it jumped to £45 million. In 1983 it jumped to £50 million. Those changes coincided with the change in the administration of the Greater London council and with the extension of the scheme to cover the tube and the evening peak period. Those two changes to the scheme cost the ratepayers of London an additional £20 million at 1980 prices. The extension may well have been valuable, but it should be considered in the context of cost. Over two years, the cost of the scheme to the GLC has increased by 65 per cent. The value of the scheme must be balanced against what the ratepayer can afford. The figure of £20 million is a substantial sum of money for the ratepayers of London to pay.
London is fortunate in having the best scheme in the country. It was the best scheme before the changes were made, and it will be the best scheme after the legislation comes into force. In many areas of the country pensioners have to pay half the fare, and in some areas—I believe that Cornwall is one—there is no scheme at all. Not only will the scheme be the best scheme in the country after London Regional Transport takes over from London Transport, but it will be better than the scheme as it existed only two and a half years ago. It will be extended fully to the tube, and it will also be entrenched in statute. At present, the GLC could change the scheme for better or for worse. A future administration at county hall might choose to remove the concessions altogether. Under this legislation, that will not be able to happen.
It is true that there will be the possibility of a small administrative charge at the discretion of local authorities. There is also the question of the evening peak.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is important that we should be able to establish whether the cost is one that the ratepayer—the ratepayer, not the GLC—is prepared to pay. Should it not be the ratepayer who decides? Is it not right that the Government should accept the views of both parties in the GLC, which have successively extended the scheme, and that the Government should not seek to go back on the democratic decisions taken at county hall over the years?

Mr. Maples: Yes, that would be so. We can take it as a fact that the GLC is probably going to be abolished. The


scheme will therefore have to be organised in some other way. If the GLC were to continue and London Transport's responsibility was simply being shifted to a new body, there would be no problem. The GLC could continue to run the present scheme and finance it by a general rate levied on London. It is because of the abolition of the GLC that another scheme is required. The original idea was that responsibility should devolve to the boroughs, where decisions might, perhaps, be even more democratic because there might be a greater knowledge of what people need. However, because that was not enough for the critics of the Government's proposals, the statutory scheme has been devised. It is only a back-up, and one hopes that the various local authorities will agree.
The provision for a small administrative charge is made only because the Secretary of State has the power to say no to a small administrative charge. It would have been difficult to legislate to the effect that local authorities could not charge anything for the issue of a pass. There will certainly be some administrative costs. The Minister has assured us that nothing other than a minimal charge will be approved.
There has been more substantial criticism about the evening peak period. I feel that the criticism has been grossly exaggerated. The right to use the pass in the evening peak period has existed only for a year. Before March 1983 there was no such right. The local authorities will still have the right, if they wish, to buy in extra time on an individual basis from London Regional Transport. They will be able to pay more and buy a pass covering that period of time.
Many Opposition Members have expressed the opinion that pensioners will not be able to travel during the evening peak period. They will be able to travel, of course, but they will have to pay. It is probable that most of the journeys that pensioners would need to make at that time would not cost more than the minimum fare of 20p or 30p. They will not suffer any awful hardships. They can travel free before 4.30 pm and after 6.30 pm or pay a minimal charge between those times.
There is an economic rationale for having an off-peak fare. The buses are trundling around London with empty seats, and it makes sense to fill those. seats at a minimal fare rather than to leave them empty. The same thing is done in the airline industry. If one wants to fly to New York, one can book a seat a week in advance and have the right to change it and the flight will cost about £450. Alternatively, one can travel stand-by, taking a seat that would otherwise be empty, and get there at a fraction of the cost. That is the rationale of this system.

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the rationale for a free travel facility for pensioners is economic—in other words, that it is designed to help the transport undertakings. In my view, the social factor is equally, if not more, important. The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that pensioners should have a right to travel freely. It is one of the few blessings that those of them who are sound in wind and limb can enjoy. When they have leisure to do so, they should not be debarred from going out shopping or sightseeing, or visiting their relations or friends.

Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman has twisted my remarks in an extraordinary way. I only said that it is a

happy coincidence when economic sense and social needs coincide, as they do in this case. It is sensible to fill bus seats at a cheap price at a time when they would otherwise be empty rather than to add to the queues and the delays at rush hours, when people need to get to work or to go home. There is an economic rationale there, and that was why the scheme was originally introduced as an off-peak scheme.
In my view, the extension of the scheme has never made a great deal of sense, and it has certainly cost a great deal of money. My right hon. Friend said that the cost of extending the scheme was some £4 million or £5 million. I am surprised that it is so little, when the real cost of the scheme has risen by about £20 million over the two years during which it has been extended to the tube and to the evening peak. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend's figure is correct.
The GLC levies the rate on a London-wide basis and therefore equalises the cost for the poorer boroughs over the wealthier ones. London Regional Transport will continue to be financed on that basis. The part of its grant that is supported by the rates will be charged on a London-wide basis. However, the concessionary fares scheme will not be financed in that way. That makes sense in that it gives the boroughs some say in the matter, but it would be wrong if the poorer boroughs ceased to get the financial support that, effectively, they have received from the richer ones. I raised this point in Committee. Ministers have said that they are aware of the problem but that it is a problem for the Department of the Environment.
There was a debate on the matter in the House on 25 November last year. My hon. Friend the Minister of State quoted the following words from the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities":
The Government consider that there should be no undue financial advantage or disadvantage to any authority as a result of abolition".
She quoted those words in the context of the concessionary fares scheme. At the risk of boring hon. Members by reiteration, I ask my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend to continue to press upon the Department of the Environment the point that the London rate equalisation scheme must be altered in such a way as to take care of the additional financial burdens which will fall on 31 out of the 33 London boroughs as a result of this change. It is not good enough to play around with the GREs, targets and penalty systems and to exempt certain expenditure. We need some method by which to change the rate equalisation scheme so that funding continues to be available as at present.
We have a good scheme. The scheme that the Government are proposing as a legislative back-up, possibly to a voluntary scheme, will be the best scheme in the country and the best that London has had except for the past six or 12 months. It is wholly to be applauded and I hope that the few London boroughs that have refused to join the negotiations with the London Boroughs Association for a generalised voluntary scheme —unfortunately, my borough of Lewisham is one—will get together and agree a scheme so that the need for invoking these clauses does not arise.

Mr. Stephen Ross: As the Member of Parliament for a constituency outside London that does not have a generous concessionary fares scheme, I hesitate to speak. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) has already hit the point that should be made. Vast areas


of the country have only small fare concessions for pensioners and most of the local authorities that operate those schemes would like desperately to make them rather better.
Many GLC pensioners have come to the Isle of Wight in the past 10 years. At every election campaign that I have fought they have asked why they cannot have the same type of scheme as they enjoyed in London so that they can travel free on the buses. As the leader of the county council. I have tried extremely hard in the past few years to see what we can do to improve our scheme, but the more we try to put extra money into the kitty to provide perhaps even a half-fare scheme, the more we get complaints from the bus company to keep services going.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow talked about Cornwall, where I believe many rural bus services have disappeared. In the Isle of Wight we have managed to keep some of the rural services going, but we have had to face a complicated choice on whether to keep those services going or to have a concessionary fares scheme. We are now putting between £300,000 and £400,000, which, in our budget, is a large sum of money, into keeping some rural services open and are able to provide only a niggardly scheme for pensioners. We should very much like to change that, but cannot. As we get into the ever-stronger grip of the Secretary of State for the Environment through penalties and the rest, the chances of our ever being able to do more diminish.
I utterly reject the Bill and the abolition of the GLC, but if, as is entirely fair, we are to maintain benefits that pensioners have enjoyed in the past and expect to enjoy in the future, the Government must come up with a complicated scheme. We cannot persuade all local authorities to come into line. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 make it obligatory, as the Secretary of State rightly said, for London boroughs to run a scheme. Such provision is not obligatory for boroughs outside the London area, such as Essex and Surrey. It is a fact of life that once concessions have been given it is extremely difficult to take them away. No Government have had the courage to face that.
There are the most appalling differences of status with regard to television licences. A person who happens to live in an estate that is constructed with a common community room gets a television licence for about 25p a year, whereas others have to pay the full fee. It was recommended some time ago by an outside body that that concession be done away with, but no Government have had the courage to do so, so we go on dodging the issue. Having given certain undertakings, the present Government will not dodge it now. I must admit that they have honoured what they said they would do, but I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to criticise, as I am sure he will, the fact that what is proposed is not quite as good a scheme as exists now. We are messing about and using a complicated system to ensure that Londoners get their concessions and levying local authorities when they do not come into line.
I put it to the Secretary of State, as, after all, he represents a rural constituency, that it is time the Government took on board the need for a national concessionary fares scheme. A Green Paper produced by the Labour Government tried to introduce a national half-fares scheme. The time for such a scheme has come. I am aware that the Secretary of State will have great difficulty

persuading his colleagues and his recent colleagues in the Treasury to provide extra money to create such a scheme, but it would be much fairer for the country.

Mr. Maples: What is the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the cost of extending free pensioner travel to the whole country?

Mr. Ross: A substantial sum, which I cannot provide off the cuff. It will be argued later that local authorities will not receive compensation, having forced themselves into the scheme.

Mr. Tony Banks: Spend less on cruise missiles.

Mr. Ross: I agree that there are other means by which to save money, perhaps on Trident rather than cruise. We must grasp the nettle. Even if it is only a 25 per cent. scheme, a national scheme is called for when we are making such provision for London but not the metropolitan boroughs. That criticism must be made.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on and welcome new clause 7 I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which they have listened to the representations made to them by London Members of Parliament on the need for this concession to be enshrined in statute. Today is a triumph for London as, for the first time, we have a concessionary fares scheme that will be enshrined in statute. New clause 7 consolidates what the London boroughs have been doing for more than a decade and makes it clear to every pensioner in London that their interests are to be protected.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and spent much time debating this matter, not least my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), whose constituencies fall within my borough. We represent an outer London borough in which the travel concession is greatly valued. What the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said was of considerable interest as he compared what appertains in rural communities with what happens in Greater London. There is no doubt that pensioners in Greater London badly need mobility, as they do not live in compact communities in which much activity occurs on their doorsteps. They often live in more urban areas and travel is essential if they are to participate in local functions. That is possibly more true for people in Greater London than for people in rural areas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said, the concession on evening peak travel between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm has applied for only a short time. He pointed out that pensioners will not be prevented from travelling during those hours. They will be able to travel free immediately before and after and probably for a small sum during those hours.
I understand that there is to be a local option, exercisable by any borough that participates in the scheme, to buy into the 4.30 pm to 6.30 pm peak if necessary. I am sure that the boroughs will consider carefully whether to buy into that option, bearing in mind the cost and the demand for travel in their areas during that time. It is a matter for local option and councillors will be sensitive to it.
Unfortunately, in the past few months there has been a great deal of party political propaganda about concessionary fares as part of the Labour party's campaign to prevent the abolition of the GLC. From time to time, we are all involved in party political propaganda. It would be nice if those who serve on the GLC, as well as Opposition Members who have been generous in their remarks, would combine in welcoming this considerable advance by way of a statutory requirement.
I hope that the London Labour-controlled authorities which apparently are not showing wholehearted support for the scheme will think again. During the late 1960s and early 1970s I was a borough councillor in two London boroughs. As a councillor for the then borough of Paddington and later Westminster, I participated in the work of the London Boroughs Association with colleagues from Labour boroughs in other parts of London. We worked well together and reached agreement on a number of matters important to Londoners as a whole. In recent months, I have been sad that a split has developed between some of the Labour-controlled and Conservative-controlled London boroughs, so that effectively there are now two associations — the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities.
I hope that some of the political in-fighting will be put aside on this important matter, which I believe transcends party politics. It is interesting that, in this debate, which essentially involves London, every hon. Member I have heard has spoken about the advantages the scheme brings to pensioners. We should concentrate on that scheme—that is the job of the House — rather than involve ourselves in a party political fight on other matters. I hope that we can increase that concentration so that opinions become more universal than they have been in the past few months.
I wholeheartedly welcome the new clause. It is a great step forward. Each Londoner who has the privilege of benefiting from the scheme can look at the good work done by the Secretary of State, his colleagues and the members of the Standing Committee in bringing the legislation to the House.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am pleased that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber after his absence following his short, sharp speech. "Sharp" may be the right word to describe what his Bill will be for the pensioners. I feared that he would be a long time away from the Chamber. I thought he was off to queue to collect his pass, because the restrictions introduced by the Bill will probably mean that it will be a long time before he can obtain it.
The Government have treated pensioners badly in a number of respects. Grants and organisations have suffered cuts. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred to the cuts in grants to pensioners in his area. Social services — meals on wheels and home help services—have been caught up in the Government's onslaught on local authorities. Health cuts and hospital closures have badly affected the elderly. An increase in electricity and gas prices will be detrimental to the pensioners. Only a couple of weeks ago housing benefit cuts were made, and 700,000 people were made worse off. The Government's record with the pensioners is not good nationally.
Pensioners will suffer because of the Bill's action on transport passes. The Government have been obsessed with abolishing the GLC and with hiving off London Transport from the GLC. Pensioners' passes are being jeopardised, and that has caused anxiety among pensioners, to which the Secretary of State referred. It is no good the Government blaming the GLC for that anxiety, because it is the Government's fault that London pensioners are worried.
I have three examples showing how the Government have spread that anxiety. First, on 10 July, during the weekend before the White Paper was published, The Observer stated:
Free travel for pensioners could be scrapped when control of the city's public transport is transferred from the GLC.
That could only have been an inspired Government leak. That sentence shows the Government's direction when the Bill was first discussed.
Secondly, people were worried when the Government relied on the London Boroughs Association. Early in the discussions the Government said, while under pressure from Opposition Members, that the LBA would guarantee the scheme. The Government had to wriggle off that hook as the Committee proceeded, because the LBA has no mandatory powers to guarantee such a scheme. When the Bromley case was discussed in the other place, the LBA refused point blank to become involved with the matter of pensioners' passes.
Thirdly, anxiety was caused when, following requests from hon. Members during Adjournment debates to the Secretary of State and the Minister, the Government refused consistently to guarantee the scheme. We should not forget the Government's black propaganda against the GLC.
There is still cause for anxiety among pensioners. It is all right for the Secretary of State to say in the House today, "The passes are safe in our hands," but that statement rings a bell. The Government said that the Health Service would be safe in their hands, yet they are closing down hospitals and wards left, right and centre.
The Government's proposals are still opposed by pensioners' organisations and those professional organisations, including Age Concern, whose job is to care for the elderly. We should never forget that at the core of the opposition to the proposals is the belief that the Government's scheme is worse than the present GLC scheme. The present scheme is about guaranteeing free travel on London Transport—the buses and the tubes—and giving half-price travel on British Rail. Passes are issued free for five-yearly periods. About 1 million London pensioners benefit from that scheme.
Originally, the Government said that they would transfer the scheme to the boroughs. From an early stage it was clear, given rate-capping, penalties and the mean Conservative-controlled councils, that that action would be a recipe for disaster. The result would be that some Tory-controlled councils would scrap the scheme, because of the pressures caused by penalties and rate-capping, or vary the eligibility of pensioners who apply for passes. There would be varying types of means tests in different boroughs, and hence inequality of treatment for pensioners. Pensioners would be charged for the pass or asked to pay a nominal fare when boarding a bus. Pressure from Opposition Members, the GLC and pensioners' organisations forced the Government to scrap their original plan and to guarantee a uniform scheme across London.
6 pm
The proposed scheme is worse than the present one. It has many shortcomings. For example, local authorities will be adversely affected because the block grant problem means that they are likely to incur penalties. The Government are trying to have their cake and eat it. The Government say that they are introducing a statutory uniform scheme, but they are not prepared to put up the money for it. They will make local authorities pay for it, and ratepayers will be penalised because of that. Local authorities must pay for the permits—there is not to be the equalisation for which Conservative Members argued in Committee. That will mean rate rises in most London boroughs. My borough of Waltham Forest may find that it has to impose a 4p or 5p rate increase.
The Government's scheme will be more bureaucratic to operate than the present scheme. That, again, will be detrimental to local authorities. Even more serious than that is that the scheme will be detrimental to pensioners. They will probably have to renew their permits more frequently. Currently, the permits last for five years, but an annual renewal may be introduced and pensioners could be charged for each renewal. Indeed, the Government can increase that charge each time if they so wish.
I presume that pensioners will have to go to the town hall rather than their local post office to collect their permits. It is more beneficial to pensioners to collect them from the post office, because that is where they collect their pensions. That scheme works well, so why should they be forced to go to town halls?
At present there is no charge for permits, but there will be a charge under the new scheme. The Secretary of State said that it would be for administrative purposes. That is the thin edge of the wedge. With all the powers given to him under the Bill, he could introduce increased charges later, when the pressure is off. He does not come under the same democratic control as the GLC.
New clause 8(5) states:
The issue of such a permit by any issuing authority shall be subject to such terms, limitations or conditions as the authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, from time to time determine".
Again, the Secretary of State has the ability to alter the terms, limitations or conditions. He could make them more restrictive as time goes on and the pressure is off him.
There is no provision to extend the concessionary fares to British Rail or to private operators. Some privately operated buses may refuse to take pensioners' passes. That is one of the faults of the road service licence scheme in the Bill. That will create confusion among London's pensioners.
An off-peak restriction has also been imposed. The Secretary of State is taking away the opportunity for pensioners to travel in the peak hours between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm and, instead, gives them from midnight to 1 am. That is not a good deal for the pensioners; it will be of little value to them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) said, the restriction on travelling in rush hours should be because it is unpleasant. Most pensioners will not want to travel during those hours, but they might need to do so for such things as a medical appointment. The choice should be theirs. After all, the Government are supposed to be the party of free choice. How about giving

London's pensioners the free choice to travel when they choose rather than adopting the line of phoney paternalism in the Bill?
Pensioners may be thrown off the buses because they are travelling at the wrong time. That will mean aggro for them and for the bus queues——

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): We became accustomed to the hon. Gentleman's style of speech in Committee. I want to assure London's pensioners that there is no question of their being thrown off the buses or the tubes during the period for which their concessionary passes entitle them to travel. They can finish their journey, and will certainly not be thrown off during it.

Mr. Cohen: That was not my point. The Minister obviously does not have the examples that I have of such things happening. Pensioners might wait for a bus from 4 pm to 4.31 pm and, because the restriction begins at 4.30 pm, they will be turfed off the bus. Again, if they try to board a bus at 6.25 pm, they will be turfed off. It is an unpleasant experience. We welcomed the GLC's extension of the scheme, because it stopped such occurrences.
There is a catalogue of the considerable reductions in the scheme that will come about because of the proposals. It is only a forerunner to reductions in the concessionary travel scheme nationally. We need the present GLC scheme, which should be maintained. I say that not only because it is popular—which it is—but because there is a genuine social need for it. It brings huge mobility benefits to pensioners.
Much has been said about the cost of that scheme, but it means only a 3p rate. It is a bargain because of the benefits obtained. The pensioners want the present scheme to be maintained, and so do I. The Government's alternative is a poor substitute.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We have covered this subject in some depth, both in Committee and in the House. Therefore, I do not propose to delay the House. I wish only to underline one or two of the more important points that have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) correctly said that this is the first time that there has been a statutory right to concessionary travel in London. That is one of the most important advances that the Bill is making. To give future London pensioners a right to concessionary travel that can be changed only by future statute in the House is a step forward that I am sure they will fully appreciate. The need for such a concession is obvious to all who represent London seats. The pensioners have enormously appreciated and, to a large extent, used the concessionary travel permits with which they have been issued since the GLC first introduced the scheme. I am delighted that the Government have decided to introduce a new scheme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, there was some debate about whether this was the appropriate place to put such a clause. It was largely due to the efforts of my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), myself and other Conservative Back Benchers that the Government decided to take such a course. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) gave himself and his colleagues unmerited praise for having achieved this, but


he and his friends could have huffed and puffed and the Government would not have budged an inch had it not been for the efforts of my hon. Friends.
The criticism that now comes in a mealy-mouthed fashion from Labour Members is not that this step has been taken by the Government but that it is inadequate. They base that criticism, so far as I can see, almost entirely on the fact that pensioners will not be able to travel free on the rush hour trains, tubes and buses. That is a wholly fallacious attack. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) admitted or, indeed, advanced as an argument in his favour, the pensioner would be most unlikely, if he was making a sensible judgment, to wish to travel during the rush hour. It is probably the most uncomfortable form of self-inflicted purgatory. It is absolute murder travelling on the tubes in the rush hour, as any hon. Member who has to do so can vouch. It is right that pensioners should be dissuaded from doing so and should not be encouraged to add to their own discomfort in that way.
Of course, I appreciate that there will be occasions when pensioners feel for one reason or another that that is the only time when they can travel. As I tried to point out in my brief intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, that will happen only rarely and when it does the penalty will only be that the pensioner will, unfortunately, have to pay a small amount extra to make the journey.
Against that it is correct to set the very substantial overall cost to the Government and to ratepayers if the full concession, including peak-time travel, were to be offered in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and others have said that that discretion should be left to individual councils. It is right that this statutory duty should be introduced and also that it should be limited as it is.
The cost of the concession, as hon. Members well know, has gone up from approximately £6 million when introduced less than a decade ago to nearly £70 million. Any future statutory commitment which would index-link it would be a very dangerous step because of the cost both to taxpayers and to ratepayers. Therefore, the limitations which are being set are right.
Pensioners in London suffer a handicap not suffered by their rural counterparts in that in the areas of London most affected by the concessionary right the community spirit is unfortunately very much weaker than it used to be and than it is in villages and small market towns in areas such as I used to represent before I moved to Upminster. I have had an opportunity to see the contrast between the rural community spirit and, sadly, the consequences in some areas of much greater mobility of population where the community spirit has broken down.
No doubt all hon. Members have read the case of Andrew Mizon, the three-year-old boy who was battered to death by his mother and her lover. None of the neighbours noticed that this was happening. It is a symptom of the evil in society that the community spirit that used to be so strong and that is portrayed so often in our folklore and history is no longer a part of many aspects of urban life. This is the case largely in tower blocks and other large buildings, which have been put up to accommodate the elderly and the disadvantaged. It is, therefore, all the more important that the great gift of

mobility and the ability to get out and go shopping, visit relatives and keep in touch with old friends is maintained and secured.
Equalisation has already been largely covered. At the moment the Bill does not deal with it. I hope that Ministers will take this very much into account when considering how the Bill needs to be developed and what other steps should be taken. It would be wrong if some poorer boroughs had to bear an intolerable burden to bring this statutory provision into effect. While I warmly welcome the new clause, it is important that equalisation is brought into effect and that the burden of providing it is more widely and fairly spread.

Mr. Tom Cox: We heard from the Secretary of State in his opening remarks about the supposed scare stories put about by the GLC and by my Labour colleagues about the bus passes of pensioners in London being under threat. If one looks back at the Second Reading debate, one will see that, after the speech by the Secretary of State, Conservative Members expressed to him their deep concern at the lack of any clear commitment by the Government that the pensioner's bus pass as we know it in the Greater London area would be protected. We could not get a commitment. We knew of the observations of the 32 London boroughs about the schemes they wanted to introduce should the present scheme not be continued.
It is no good the Secretary of State saying that hon. Members knew all along that the bus pass would be protected. It was not protected until the people who were benefiting from it expressed in the House and in the constituencies their real fear that under the proposals outlined in the early discussions adequate protection was not being given to ensure that the pass would remain in force. That is why the Secretary of State was forced—he did not do it willingly—to make concessions.
As many of my hon. Friends have already said, although there have been concessions, the scheme that will shortly be implemented after the establishment of the new transport authority will not be as good as the existing scheme. The reasons have already been given. Under the Bill, transport in London will be worse. We have not heard much from the Secretary of State about the rights of elected Members after he has appointed the people who will run London transport.
There are many other issues that one could touch on. Those of us, irrespective of the party we represent in the House, who are members of the all-party pensioners group know that the one issue that is always on the agenda at meetings is the need to extend and develop concessionary fares throughout the United Kingdom. Pensioners in other parts of the country look with envy at what we have been able to achieve in London. Looking back to the early 1970s, when the scheme was being developed, one sees that it was because of the lack of a unified scheme throughout London that the GLC took it over. It could not leave it any longer to the boroughs to decide on a scheme that would meet the needs of Londoners, irrespective of where they lived.
The Government would like the people to believe that they intended that a new scheme would be in operation for the elderly and others who use the existing scheme. The Government were forced to do it, and it is our duty to make


the people of London aware that only because of the pressures that they put on the Government were the necessary changes made.
New clause 1(4)(c) relates to the general lack of provision for the elderly and disabled in transport terms, and that is why my hon. Friends and I have talked about the importance of the dial-a-ride scheme. Disabled people have lobbied Ministers and we have had debates urging the Government to develop the dial-a-ride concept because it benefits severely disabled people. We have urged the Government to incorporate that scheme into this legislation.
The various dial-a-ride schemes, which we hoped would be expanded, have provided the severely disabled, many of them confined to wheelchairs, with the opportunity for the first time in their lives to get about. It is to the credit of the GLC, and London boroughs working with the GLC, that the dial-a-ride scheme has been developed. Under that scheme, specially converted ambulances call at the homes of disabled people and take them to visit friends or relatives or to go shopping and so on. Without that provision, many of them would never leave their homes.
Because of the amount of happiness that that scheme has brought to a small but important number of people, we urged the Government to ensure its continuance and development. As I say, for those who use the scheme, it is a lifeline because they are unable to use the normal public transport services. Sadly, we have had no response to our plea that that type of provision be written into the Bill. That is a deplorable indictment of the supposed concern of the Government for the disabled and the elderly. The GLC has shown its willingness to extend the service, but the Government have not given an assurance that the scheme will continue to be developed for the benefit of those who now use it.
We have been told that we can leave it to the London boroughs to buy and provide additional services. Anybody from the London borough of Wandsworth knows that that council would not do anything of the sort. At present, Wandsworth is cutting back on the grants that were made available to certain elderly and disabled groups in the borough. Considering that borough's current record on existing services, nobody can believe that it — sadly, there are plenty of other Wandsworths in the GLC area —will buy extra services. Neither will it develop, for example, the dial-a-ride scheme.
To their credit, many Ministers have assisted in the development of services for the disabled. The dial-a-ride scheme has benefited enormous numbers of people. Although it has proven its worth to the disabled, the Secretary of State has refused to give a commitment that it will continue. We are aware of the right hon. Gentleman's lack of concern on many issues, but we thought that the Minister of State, in view of the sort of meetings in which she has been involved, would have had some influence on her right hon. Friend on this issue.
Hon. Members who are committed to seeing the scheme developed, with the help of those who have benefited from it, will do all in our power to embarrass the Government by showing how heartless they are. We shall do our best to ensure that the scheme flourishes and develops for the people of London who have made it clear that they need it.

Mr. Greenway: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), although I must repudiate the strident terms in which he set about the Government on this issue. I remind him that, although the Labour party has held office several times before and since 1945, it never guaranteed concessionary passes or made the slightest effort to do so.
Therefore, how can the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members berate the Government at a time when passes, for the first time ever, have been guaranteed by the Government? The Opposition are skating on very thin ice indeed. After all, the Lib-Lab pact did not seek to guarantee passes. Let there be no doubt that this is the first Government to guarantee concessionary passes; that must be to our credit.
I was among the first on Second Reading to raise the issue of concessionary passes, for I agree with hon. Members in all parts of the House about the importance of these passes to pensioners. I would—indeed, I did—fight tooth and nail for this concession because pensioners in my constituency and throughout London find the pass a lifeline. It represents a day out, a little time away from the four walls, a chance to visit a relative in another part of London or see a grandchild at school. For people of limited means — which pensioners on supplementary benefit, for example, are, by definition—that is more important than anything else. None of us could have stood by and see that go.
It is fair to point out that the GLC's scheme has been developed by Conservative and Labour administrations at county hall. However, it is wrong for the GLC, aided and abetted by Labour Members, to have spent at least £3 million of ratepayers' money on its spurious scheme to save passes.
I never doubted that the passes were going to continue, and the best way to be sure that they continued was the guarantee that we have had. We have the best, and one cannot do better than that. As I said, no previous Government have ever done that. To have spent at least £3 million—some people say that it was £5 million—of ratepayers' money, much of it coming from old people who find it hard to pay, was disgraceful. A pensioner in my constituency is struggling to find £400 a year in rates. If she lived in Brent, she would have to pay £800 for a similar property. This is wrong, disgraceful and unfair and a gross misuse of public money. The GLC should now apologise to Londoners for having misspent their money.
The central importance of the concessionary pass is to the 1·1 million pensioners and others who have been enjoying the pass, and one could not morally take it away from them. There was no question but that it had to continue, and I am delighted that it did.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to put down on paper the details of the sums which he alleges have been spent by the GLC in this way? Would he not agree that the need for entrenchment of the pass system in legislation, which Sir Horace Cutler dare not take away, is due only to the inception of London Regional Transport? Had it been left to the electors of London, there would have been no need to entrench it in legislation.

Mr. Greenway: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He knows that Labour Members in the


past have criticised the concessionary pass scheme as operated by their colleagues in county hall and by Conservative administrations in county hall. It is never good enough for any of us. We all want it to be better. Having offered that criticism of their colleagues in county hall, why did Labour Members when they were in government not produce the guarantee that this Government have produced?
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I ask her to consider whether she can make some concession to the unemployed, even if it is not a pass. Is there some way in which unemployed people travelling to interviews in London might have a docket or two from time to time? It can cost up to £3 or £5 to travel to London for a job interview which, if one is unemployed, is of great importance. If one is unemployed, by definition one has little money. Can something be done about that? I would welcome any such concession, which I think we owe to Londoners.
As to the 4.30 to 6.30 pm blank period, during which a pass-holder cannot use a pass, I understand the arguments put forward by the Secretary of State. There is great pressure on transport at that time, and it would be expensive to extend the pass to cover that period. However, I wonder whether there could be an opt-in clause for pensioners who have a special need to travel regularly in those hours. It might be expensive to administer, but perhaps it could be done at a minimum cost. I should be grateful if consideration could be given to that suggestion.
Londoners are second to none as citizens of this nation. All hon. Members know that the people of London are a great people. I wonder whether we might take a leaf out of the French book and reserve a few seats on public transport for pensioners. I accept that this may be difficult to enforce and would need careful consideration. In France, a few seats on underground trains and on buses are reserved exclusively for the use of pensioners, and people who are "mutilés de la guerre"—disabled service men—might be included in that category. I do not expect to see this enshrined in the legislation, but I hope that the Minister might offer some encouragement to London Regional Transport to make such a provision.

Mr. Tony Banks: We have heard many immodest claims from Conservative Members about the inclusion of the new clause in the legislation. No doubt Conservative Members—I certainly accept that it is true of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)—played a prominent part in trying to ensure that the Government changed their mind, as they have, and altered what was said when the Bill was introduced. It is a most unreal situation. The House is being detained to discuss free bus passes for pensioners and is congratulating itself on doing the decent thing by pensioners. The fact is that the scheme that the Government are introducing is not as good as the existing scheme.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does not the hon Gentleman agree that the posters exhibited by the GLC throughout London, and the Londoner newspaper, distributed at the ratepayers' expense, stated that there would be no scheme after LRT took over?

Mr. Banks: The publicity by the GLC was to build up a campaign that would have some influence on the Government, and it worked, because the Government have manifestly changed their minds.

Mrs. Chalker: It was not necessary.

Mr. Banks: The Minister says that it was not necessary. Let me remind her what she said on 25 November 1983 in the Adjournment debate, when I raised the matter of free travel. I asked the Minister to allay the fears of pensioners, whom she said were being stirred up by the publicity issued from county hall. I said, and I repeat, that all she needed to do was to give an unequivocal assurance that the existing scheme would be retained when the new London Regional Transport came into being. She said:
I come to the next misconception of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. This has nothing to do with London Regional Tranport. The whole issue of LRT is the management of the provision of bus and underground services in greater London. LRT will be like any other transport undertaking.
She continued:
The choice is up to the London boroughs, not the Government. It is not an issue arising from the setting up of LRT, as I said, but a consequence of the abolition of the GLC."—[Official Report, 25 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 416.]
The Government had no intention then of writing into the legislation the safeguarding of pensioners' fares. Whoever wishes to claim the credit — whether Conservative Members wish to claim that the GLC was stirring it up, or whether they wish to claim the credit for themselves —the Government have changed their mind, and we should welcome that, to a limited extent.

Mr. Ridley: What the hon. Gentleman says is rubbish. Can he tell me why the GLC continued to try to make out that pensioners' passes were to be taken away after I made the statement on 16 February? Since then, the GLC has not abated for one moment its mischievous propaganda, which it must now know is not true. Why did the GLC not hear what I said in the House on 16 February?

Mr. Banks: The Secretary of State will no doubt feel a little aggrieved when I say that we wanted to see the colour of his new clause. When dealing with such a Government, it is necessary to see the small print. I have always accepted the good intentions of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, but that is not good legislation. We want to see what they said in cold print.
However, the Bill is not good enough, because it does not provide a great improvement in services to London's pensioners. Conservative Members have made great play of the fact that concessionary fares will now be enshrined in statute, but the proposed scheme is not as good as the present one. As long as there was a directly elected GLC in county hall there was no danger of concessionary fares being abolished, because the pensioners had exercised their power through the ballot box. They also exercised their power effectively to ensure that the Government changed their mind and introduced the new clause. Although we must welcome the new clause, it will mean that pensioners will be worse off when the new LRT authority is created. All the flannel, humbug and self-congratulation on the Conservative Benches will not make a whit of difference to that reality.
In many aspects the new scheme will create problems. We shall discuss some of those when we debate subsequent clauses, but one problem will be the


implications of block grant penalties. The GLC scheme costs about £56·8 million to operate, but the GRE assessment allows for only £27·6 million. As several hon. Members have said, the councils will be issuing passes under the new scheme, which will lead to more costs and bureaucracy in the town halls. At present it is convenient for pensioners to obtain their passes from post offices.
The Secretary of State must also address himself to equalisation. All the boroughs, with the possible exceptions of Westminster, Kensington, City of London and Camden. will be worse off if they must issue the passes themselves without the benefit of the equalisation provided by the 3p GLC rate. The Secretary of State should make a statement about this or introduce a new clause. Good intentions are not enough; we must see it in cold print. If the matter is not dealt with, boroughs such as Newham, which has a large pensioner population, most of whom are at the lowest income levels, will be in some difficulty because they must find an extra 2p rate. With rate-capping on its way, that will pose a great problem to the boroughs. The boroughs affected will include many of the outer London Tory boroughs, because London's population is moving outwards, and Barnet and Bromley, for example, will have to find a substantial additional amount of money if there is no equalisation.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that concessionary passes are a valuable asset to pensioners. We should be discussing the extension of this scheme throughout the country. As London Members, we accept that the scheme is necessary in London, but equity demands that we should discuss a national scheme. It is clear from statistics that 66 per cent. of pensioners in London do not have access to private cars. That is an average figure, but the numbers increase in boroughs such as Newham, whose pensioners rely almost entirely on buses and tubes. Therefore, the Opposition must welcome the fact that the Government have had the courtesy and decency to change their mind, although under pressure.
6.45 pm
However, no one should misunderstand the fact that, whether the scheme is statutorily backed or not, it is a worse scheme than pensioners presently have. It has been introduced not because the Government wish to incorporate it in legislation but because they have been forced to do so. They would not have been forced to do so, we would not have had this debate and there would be no London Regional Transport Bill were it not for the fact that they intend to abolish the GLC. To make the abolition of the GLC, as will be said in some journals, more meaningful, they found it necessary first to remove from county hall the control of London transport. This debate has nothing to do with their desire to look after London's pensioners.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Most hon. Members are not yet pensioners, but most of us hope to be the pensioners of tomorrow. Pensioners now represent about one fifth of the electorate, and this debate is about the freedom, mobility and happiness of that enormous group in our society.
London now has concessionary fares across the city. That was a logical move, because a city divided into 33 local authority areas does not reflect travel patterns and needs, especially of the elderly — where they shop, where they visit their families and friends, or where they go out. The travel needs of the fare-paying and the

concessionary fare-receiving pensioners must he considered over London as a whole. It was inadequate of the Government to imagine from the outset that the 33 local authorities could have cobbled together an agreed pattern. The matter must be considered comprehensively.
The White Paper last summer said that the concessionary fares scheme might be continued. However, it also said that it might not, because it did not underwrite the scheme. Therefore, although I share the reservations about the campaign, the GLC should not have said that there would be no concessionary fares scheme. That was not clear then. There was a risk that the concessionary fares would be abolished, but no one could be certain. Since then, there has been growing pressure from all quarters and we have arrived at the Government's present position.
The Government's proposals have little logic. They decided to abolish the local authority governing the needs of London, for reasons which we shall debate at length in the coming months. In doing so, they also decided to abolish the authority that was trying to co-ordinate travel in London. That task must be carried out in a co-ordinated way, as the Government have accepted by replacing the GLC with a new authority that will deal with London as a whole. Since local authorities of both colours in county hall have decided that pensioners should have concessionary fares and have devised a scheme for doing so, the Government cannot and should not impose their will by saying, "We shall change that system because we know better." They should accept the way in which evolution has left London with the present system, the best in Britain but certainly not the best that it could be and not as good as one hopes it will be one day.
In principle, it should of course be a local authority decision, not a statutory one. The fact that there is now statutory underwriting and guarantee of the scheme comes about only because the local authority which has dealt with the matter will no longer be there to do so. It is quite clear that, wherever possible, transport should not be a nationalised industry when it deals with one area of the country; it should be the responsibility of the locally elected people.
The Government, having decided to remove a tier of local authority jurisdiction, came up with a scheme which failed to guarantee to the people and to the boroughs of London the money that was previously raised for the scheme through the GLC rates. That was doubly illogical. Local authorities were told that they could have a scheme if they could agree on one but that there was no guarantee that the funding would be provided. Many local authorities, both Tory and Labour, said plainly that they could not afford it.
That is how the whole process has gone on for the past months. It has proceeded from one illogical premise of the Government to another, from which they have had to move as a result of the pressure put on them.
In some ways, it is better that the scheme be guaranteed by statute, although the power and decision should lie with the local authority, but if Members believe that things which are enshrined in statute cannot be changed at the whim of a Government whipping their Back Benchers through the Lobbies, they are mistaken.
I accept that hon. Members from all parties have put pressure on the Government. The pensioners, too, have made a substantial contribution to the pressure. It might even be said that without the concessionary passes they


might have been less effective in doing so, because not as many could have come here to make their feelings known. Nevertheless, it is the pressure from all sides, the pressure of the logic of the argument, which has caused the Government to change tack.
If the Government say that it was always their intention to provide a back-up scheme, may I challenge the Minister in this way? Today is 4 April 1984, the date of the first entry in Winston Smith's diary in George Orwell's "1984", in which he writes about the Ministry of Truth. I challenge the Minister or the Secretary of State to produce to the House an internal Government document, one of those Sarah Tisdall-type restricted documents which were, no doubt, circulating, if what the Minister says is true, last summer, a document which states that the Minister will introduce the reserve power at the right time.
If the Government want it to be believed that they always intended to underwrite the scheme, they must prove their case. If they cannot, we shall not believe it but shall have to conclude that only pressure has bought about their change of heart.
Criticisms remain. We are replacing the present scheme by a poorer one. The new pass may have to be paid for. Once a charge is made, it is likely to go up; that means that out of the pensioner's income, with no additional funds, he or she will have to pay for travel which is now free.
London Regional Transport, a body not elected but totally nominated by the Secretary of State, will have power to change the hours of the concession without any consultation with or, as I understand it, reference to the this place. There will be consultation with the passengers' committee but LRT will retain the power.
There is also the possibility of the matter being reviewed every year. Local authorities are complaining as it is. They ask to be left alone, to be given certainty and to have the threat of annual change removed. This provision has an inbuilt risk of a change of system every year.
Nor is there any guarantee for pensioners who happen to want to use a route that, under the new scheme, may be run by an independent operator. There is no possibility of a concessionary fare there. For many pensioners, that will be a positive disadvantage.
The disabled and the pensioners have very little. They have the worst pensions of any country in the European Community. They already get a bad deal out of our society. It now looks as though even some of that little which they have will be taken away. That is a bad thing.
Although I cannot guarantee the same reward, I repeat some words for the Secretary of State's benefit: "Turn again." He has done so once. He has come back from the brink and produced a concessionary scheme. I ask him, like Dick Whittington, to turn again and give the pensioners what they ought to have had all along. I ask him to equivocate no longer but to produce the goods and serve that important part of our community which has suffered from all Governments for far too long and which deserves to retain what it has achieved by its own fight over the years.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: The Secretary of State was keen to accuse the GLC of spending ratepayers' money in a campaign on the

issue of free fares, but the very fact that a concessionary fares scheme is now going into the Bill is justification of the money spent by the GLC. It mounted a campaign which was supported by old-age pensioners and by the disabled and, as a result of that pressure, what should have been in the original Bill is now being added by means of a new clause. That is a simple statement of fact and no argument to the contrary will alter it. The public will see that the Government have had to make a volteface in being forced to accept the logic of the GLC's campaign and the pressure put on them by the electorate.
Had it not been for the fact that the GLC had introduced free passes, there would be no question of defending something that was non-existent. The very fact that the free pass scheme already existed caused the campaign to be mounted and the Government to face up to the necessity to continue with something which the people have and want to keep. If the GLC had not introduced a scheme of free passes in London, it would never have been in the Bill for us to consider.
In spite of all that, however, 1 million free pass holders in London are still most apprehensive about their passes. The first body blow is the suggestion that a charge of £5 or more be made for the pass. That has been suggested in Bromley, the borough in which I live. It is suggested that that figure which could be increased at any time. Such a charge could make a pass prohibitive for old-age pensioners and others. Five pounds may seem a small amount of money to some, but it cannot easily be found by many old people in my area.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend realise that his concern is well founded? During Question Time we were told, though not in so many words, that the Government were considering withdrawing the free ferry at Woolwich. If they are thinking of that, they may well make a charge for passes for old-age pensioners.

Mr. Roberts: The old-age pensioners and the disabled will be at the tender mercy of one person— not the GLC, an elected body, but the Secretary of State. Furthermore, there is a fear that the sectors of public transport which are to be sold to private profiteers will not be available for free travel for pensioners and others.
Another fear is that poor boroughs such as Hackney, part of which I represent, will not be able to finance free travel passes because of the large number of old people and invalids in the area. Boroughs such as Hackney, which have so many social problems already because of the Tory Government, will not be able to raise the extra money needed for free passes.
Yet another fear arises from rate capping and the rate penalties that will be imposed on such boroughs. Hackney community transport has a new "dial-a-ride" scheme. There are fears that this scheme will have to go because the borough will not be able to afford it any more than it can afford to pay for free travel for its old folk.
London needs to equalise the cost of free travel as it exists at the moment, with the rich boroughs helping the poor boroughs. The GLC has been able to run an excellent free pass scheme with a 3p rate. With the abolition of the democratically elected body, the Government are throwing the present GLC scheme into anarchy and disruption.
We are pleased to have had a victory and to have compelled the Government to change their mind about free


travel. However, we are still not satisfied that the scheme will be as good or as secure as the present one run by the GLC.

7 pm

Mr. Snape: The debate has been a continuation of one that has lasted for some months and shows the interest of both sides of the House in concessionary passes for pensioners.
The Secretary of State made a predictable speech—if I may put it that way — when he described the Opposition as fighting a ruthless scare campaign. Presumably, those remarks related to our attitude towards the issue. He suggested that the Opposition were stirring pensioners into an unnecessary frenzy. He appears to want the House to believe that it was always the Government's intention to introduce this new clause and that all the fuss that has gone on for so long is completely unnecessary.
As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, (Mr. Spearing), as recently as November last the Secretary of State was saying that legislation was not the place to deal with concessionary fares. He evidently still believes that. As recently as the Second Reading debate he was saying—I am trying to be fair about this—to some of his hon. Friends that there was no need for such a clause.
It is predictably graceless of the right hon. Gentleman not to mention that today. He has been forced to make a U-turn, and whether that has come about as a result of pressure from my hon. Friends, from his hon. Friends—one or two of whom claimed the credit this afternoon—or, as I think most of us would acknowledge, from the pensioners, the concessions that he has made are welcome as far as they go.
Unfortunately, as my hon. Friends have said, the concessions do not go far enough. They represent a worsening of the concessionary fare scheme for pensioners in London. It is regrettable that those of his hon. Friends who welcomed the Secretary of State's conversion have not thought fit to say that it conceals the fact that the concession, welcome thought it is, represents a reduction in travelling conditions for old-age pensioners and others in Greater London. That is regrettable and reprehensible.
The thrust of the Government's argument in Committee was, and today has been, that the GLC extended the hours during which concessionary parties were available out of bloody-mindedness because of the threat of abolition. That is palpably untrue. It is the kind of thing that the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and Conservative Members have been saying for some months. There is nothing new about the principle of concessionary fares. One or two of my hon. Friends have said that there has never been any need for a Labour Government to introduce legislation because no Labour Government have ever abolished a local authority because they disagreed with its philosophies and policies. The underlying reason behind this deplorable legislation — to paraphrase the courageous words of two Conservative Members of the GLC in a letter to The Guardian—is the abolition of the GLC because the Government disagree with its political philosophy.
Let us have no smokescreen about the Government's interest in pensioners' concessionary fares. The Government could easily have demonstrated that interest

in Committee. During the debates on clause 12 my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) moved amendment No. 41, which provided:
(5) The Secretary of State shall make such grant to London Transport as may be required to maintain the system of free travel permits now in operation for pensioners and disabled persons resident in Greater London". — [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 February 1984; c. 543.]
It was a simple, stark amendment which would have guaranteed concessionary fares in the future. Unfortunately, every Conservative Member present voted against the amendment. So much for their interest in seeing that concessionary fares enjoyed by pensioners were continued. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) could not bring themselves to vote for the amendment. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that he did not agree with the Government dealing with these matters by legislation. I accept that to a certain extent he has repeated the same argument today. I do not believe that it is a good argument, but he would not expect me to.
The reasons why the GLC abolished the restrictions during the evening peak hours are simple and they are not new, for all the claptrap we have heard from Conservative Members about it being done only in the past year or so for the reasons that I have given.
As long ago as 1981, free travel for permit holders on the underground was extended to cover the evening peak period. There was a good reason for that. 'The professionals responsible for the day-to-day running of the organisation, about whom the Secretary of State speaks so fondly, found that because the evening restriction began at 4 o'clock there was considerable overcrowding on services used by schoolchildren. Pensioners who were anxious to board a bus before 4 o'clock found that it was sometimes impossible to do so because most schools in the London area finished at about that time. The restriction was lifted on the underground to enable pensioners to use an alternative form of transport. That was before the Government were, sadly, re-elected and before they published their shoddy election manifesto threatening to abolish the GLC. There is nothing new about that philosophy. The GLC has believed in it for a long time and it was determined to extend the scheme eventually to the buses.
Such things do not come cheaply. Every social advance during my lifetime has been opposed by the Conservative party on the ground that the nation could not afford it. We have heard the same cant from Conservative Members this afternoon about evening peak hour travel for pensioners. We have also heard a great deal of cant from them about equalisation. Some of them have realised, albeit belatedly, that the legislation, which they have trooped dutifully through the Lobby to support, is likely to have a serious financial impact on their ratepayers. Instead of shedding crocodile tears in the debate, we shall give them the opportunity to do something about it, as the following debate deals with equalisation. Conservative Members can put their votes where their mouths are and show their concern for the financial rectitude of their constituents by supporting the new clause.
The whole question of concessionary fares has exercised the minds of the Committee and the House for a long time. The Opposition desire only to preserve that which pensioners enjoy now. I do not think that we are


asking too much of a country such as ours, or of the House. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby to help secure that laudable objective.

Mrs. Chalker: At the beginning of my remarks I must put to rest an issue that is not germane to the debate. It was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said this afternoon that the Woolwich ferry will continue to provide services, which is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman said. That should be put right.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Lady has quoted exactly what the Minister said — "continue" services. The Minister declined to reply when he was challenged to say whether they would be free. I have tabled a written question for Monday next to the Secretary of State, giving him the opportunity to say that the Woolwich ferry will remain a free service. To put my intervention in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that there will be no need for old-age pensioners' free passes on a paid Woolwich ferry.

Mrs. Chalker: Hon. Members may wonder why I raised the matter. Knowing the skill of the hon. Member for Newham, South, I am sure that he will be well satisfied with the answer that he receives next Monday.
We have spent some 14 hours discussing concessionary fares. I do not object to that, but I do object to the fact that so many elderly people have been disturbed and worried by the continuing propaganda that has been put about by Labour Members and some members of the GLC for the past 10 months. What a pity that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) did not contact me in May last year. I could have saved him some expense. However, he did not do so.
The Government have made it crystal clear from the beginning that we believe that the concessionary fares scheme should continue and would continue, and that the issue arises not on the London Regional Transport Bill, but as a result of forthcoming legislation dealing with the future of the GLC.
In the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I quoted a letter from the former Secretary of State for Transport:
I can assure you that the Government appreciate the value pensioners place on their concessionary fares and that there is no intention that they should be deprived of travel concessions when the GLC is abolished."—[Official Report, 25 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 415.]
I cannot believe that anything could be clearer than that. I repeated what was said in the White Paper, published in July 1983:
The Government have always recognised the concern of London's pensioners that a joint scheme for concessionary travel should be available to them.
The campaign has gone on. Many people have been worried unnecessarily and have got themselves far more worked up about the issue than could be justified in any political system. I believe that my hon. Friends were right to allay the fears that have been built up. That is why a reserve scheme has been brought forward in new clauses 7, 8 and 9.
7.15 pm
The reserve scheme will take effect if the London boroughs do not reach voluntary agreement within the next

two years. I have every hope that they will do so if the Association of London Authorities, those Labour-controlled London boroughs that have so far declined to discuss the matter, change their minds and reach a voluntary agreement.
The concessionary scheme, whether it is introduced on a voluntary basis under clause 48 or has to fall back on the reserve statutory scheme, will provide Londoners with the concessionary fares scheme that they need. The statutory scheme will allow pensioners and disabled people free travel on LRT services at all times at weekends and bank holidays and at off-peak times on weekdays. It will apply to travel on buses and underground services. Blind people will have the right to travel free at all times. If additional provision is wanted, as some hon. Members have said this evening, it will be feasible for boroughs which, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, clearly have a social duty as well as a wider financial duty, to add to the basic uniform scheme. That is a matter for them.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked about concessions on services operated under a road service licence, not by LRT under a clause 3(2) agreement covered by the concessionary fares scheme. If the boroughs wish to facilitate travel for their pensioners under RSL services, there is no reason why independent operators should not provide those services, and there is no reason for them to refuse to do so. It would be wrong to put a private independent operator under a statutory obligation. That is one aspect that they and the borough must consider when an RSL is applied for, and it can be settled locally.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister asking us to believe that the many private bus companies that she hopes to encourage to operate in stage carriage areas will undertake individual negotiations with each of the 32 boroughs? There may be as many as 100 buses. How will the scheme be maintained under those conditions?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is neatly forgetting something that I said in Committee. The RSL services would be very limited by comparison with the provision of services by LRT, under clause 3(2) agreements covered by the concessionary fares scheme. It is up to the borough concerned, where those services run within it, to decide whether its pensioners should benefit from it.
In the same way—the hon. member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said this many times — the concessions available must be provided with regard to cost. One cannot make provisions without counting how the concessionary fares will be paid for. I must point out that the fares are not free but must be paid for by ratepayers and taxpayers. We must achieve a reasonable balance while providing a good concessionary fares scheme for pensioners.
I was asked several questions, some of which were answered earlier in the debate. We know that the half-fare scheme was introduced only recently by British Rail. Since its introduction, we have heard all sorts of proposals. It was clear after the Bill's publication that the bill for the services provded by LRT would be picked up not by the GLC but by London ratepayers and future Governments. It is cynical to suggest that things could be done in future by the GLC that cannot be done now.

Mr. Snape: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: I really must get on. I shall not give way, on the basis of the agreement that the hon. Gentleman and I have had all along.
I was asked about the length of time for which passes could continue. It is possible that five-year passes could be issued but, sadly, many people of that age do not survive for the whole of the five-year period. There is a problem of control at the beginning because the charge for the passes would be made to cover the whole of the five-year period.
Whereas I can understand the anxiety about having an annual renewal, there is nothing to prevent there being a longer period for the passes to be established. However, I hope that that is one of the things that the London boroughs will achieve and settle, because it is up to them to do so.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: When we abolish the other metropolitan councils, is it not clear that a clause such as this will be needed? Is it not unfair that people in my constituency and in other parts of Britain will have to subsidise free bus passes in London and other metropolitan council areas? Is not the inevitable conclusion that, in fairness, free bus passes should be available either all over Britain or nowhere?

Mrs. Chalker: I was coming to that point. My hon. Friend has raised an interesting matter. It is notable that, in 1979, the then Labour Government published a Green Paper in which they advocated a national scheme of concessionary fares, but they then rejected it because they believed that the decision should be left to the individual counties.
I shall respond to the other questions about the metropolitan counties. In the metropolitan counties, after abolition, there will be joint boards covering transport, which will be responsible for public transport. They will be able to take a unified decision about the scheme in those areas. However, the Bill is about LRT, and I return to London Transport matters. If the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) is patient, he will find that in a later amendment something worth while is being done for those who benefit so greatly from dial-a-ride schemes. In view of the time, I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to leave that matter until later.
Many hon. Members were concerned about the financing of the concessionary fares scheme and about London equalisation. The Government made it clear in the White Paper entitled "Streamlining the Cities", and we have repeated in Committee several times, that the London rates equalisation scheme would be extended to ensure that London ratepayers were not disadvantaged by the disappearance of the GLC. The London rates equalisation scheme ensures that high rateable resources in central London are redistributed to the benefit of the poorer boroughs. The Government will continue the scheme when the GLC is abolished to maintain the balance between ratepayers so that the poorer boroughs will get compensation for the cost of paying for the concessionary passes through contributions from the richer boroughs under the rates equalisation scheme.
Many and various other comments were made, but owing to the lack of time I shall say just this about the scheme. It is a reserve provision. I believe that the LBA, as it has said many times, can reach agreement on a uniform scheme without recourse to the statute. The

scheme has powers to prevent boroughs or the GLC charging a heavy fee for the passes. No such protection exists now. Any charges would have to be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is true that it applies to off-peak travel, but a south-east London bus driver said:
Trying to get home after working hours is already a problem for many. Should the GLC decide to carry out this policy"—
extending the concessionary passes through the '4. hole of the evening rush hour—
I am afraid we will lose what passengers we have.
It will incense workers to club together and hire mini-cabs or coaches, or join those already travelling by coach.
That bus driver was pointing to the balance that we have to achieve. We want pensioners to enjoy the benefit of concessionary passes in London, but travel in London is not just for pensioner passengers. We must also remember the ratepayer, as well as the taxpayer, who pay the cost of the concessionary passes. It is high time that the oft-repeated and false campaign was laid to rest and that the people responsible for London Transport got on with the job of working out the best way to provide London's pensioners and disabled people with concessionary fares in future rather than engaging in a war of sterile propaganda.
The LBA will continue to make its efforts. The scheme that the Government have proposed in new clauses 7, 8 and 9 and consequent amendments is good, but it is mindful of the real needs of ratepayers. The Government cannot and should not ignore the cost, but we can and will ensure, and are ensuring, as we have always intended to do, that the concessionary fares scheme will continue after the abolition of the GLC.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed: In subsection (5)(b) leave out evening'.—[Mr. Prescott.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 273.

Dlvision No. 226]
[7.25 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Alton, David
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Anderson, Donald
Cartwright, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Thomas


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clay, Robert


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Barnett, Guy
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, Donald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Conlan, Bernard


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Bell, Stuart
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bermingham, Gerald
Craigen, J. M.


Blair, Anthony
Crowther, Stan


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boyes, Roland
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Deakins, Eric


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dixon, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm
Dobson, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, Jack


Caborn, Richard
Douglas, Dick


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Dubs, Alfred


Campbell, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.






Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Meadowcroft, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Michie, William


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ellis, Raymond
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wshawe)


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fatchett, Derek
Nellist, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Pavitt, Laurie


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pendry, Tom


Freud, Clement
Penhaligon, David


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Hardy, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Harman, Ms Harriet
Redmond, M.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Ms Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Heffer, Eric S.
Robertson, George


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Rogers, Allan


Hoyle, Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Ryman, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Hon Greville
Sheerman, Barry


John, Brynmor
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Johnston, Russell
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Kennedy, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, C.(ISl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Snape, Peter


Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leighton, Ronald
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Loyden, Edward
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Torney, Tom


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKelvey, William
Wareing, Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Weetch, Ken


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Michael


McTaggart, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Marek, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maxton, John
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John McWilliam.


Maynard, Miss Joan



Meacher, Michael





NOES


Adley, Robert
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry


Alexander, Richard
Bendall, Vivian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, William


Amess, David
Berry, Sir Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ashby, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Body, Richard


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter


Baldry, Anthony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Braine, Sir Bernard





Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayhoe, Barney


Bright, Graham
Hayward, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Heddle, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Henderson, Barry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hickmet, Richard


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burt, Alistair
Hill, James


Butcher, John
Hind, Kenneth


Butler, Hon Adam
Hirst, Michael


Butterfill, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hooson, Tom


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Churchill, W. S.
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hunter, Andrew


Cockeram, Eric
Jackson, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Conway, Derek
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Couchman, James
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Crouch, David
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman


Dunn, Robert
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Lawler, Geoffrey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lester, Jim


Farr, John
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Favell, Anthony
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lord, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lyell, Nicholas


Fletcher, Alexander
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maginnis, Ken


Forman, Nigel
Major, John


Forth, Eric
Maples, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marland, Paul


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol


Franks, Cecil
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Freeman, Roger
Merchant, Piers


Gale, Roger
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miscampbell, Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Goodlad, Alastair
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorst, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gow, Ian
Moyniharr, Hon C.


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mudd, David


Greenway, Harry
Murphy, Christopher


Gregory, Conal
Needham, Richard


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Newton, Tony


Ground, Patrick
Nicholson, J.


Gummer, John Selwyn
Normanton, Tom


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Harvey, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Porter, Barry


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hawksley, Warren
Powley, John


Hayes, J.
Raffan, Keith






Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Renton, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rhodes James, Robert
Terlezki, Stefan


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rost, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ryder, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Viggers, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shersby, Michael
Wall, Sir Patrick


Silvester, Fred
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Watson, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Speed, Keith
Wheeler, John


Speller, Tony
Whitfield, John


Spencer, Derek
Whitney, Raymond


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanley, John
Wolfson, Mark


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Woodcock, Michael


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)



Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stokes, John
Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Stradling Thomas, J.



Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FREE TRAVEL SCHEME

`(1) The following provisions of this section apply for the purposes of the operation of the free travel scheme in relation to any accounting year of London Regional Transport to which the scheme applies (referred to below in this section as the relevant accounting year).

(2) As soon as the requirements for the application of the free travel scheme to the relevant accounting year are met, London Regional Transport shall notify all London borough councils and the Common Council (referred to below in this section as issuing authorities) that the scheme will apply to that accounting year.

(3) London Regional Transport shall from time to time supply to each issuing authority such travel concession permits as appear to London Regional Transport to be required by that authority for issue to eligible London residents in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, an issuing authority shall issue a travel concession permit supplied by London Regional Transport under this section to any eligible London resident who applies for one and is resident in the area of that authority.

(5) The issue of such a permit by any issuing authority shall be subject to such terms, limitations or conditions as the authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, from time to time determine as respects any category of eligible London residents.

(6) Before 1st February in the accounting year immediately preceding the relevant accounting year London Regional

Transport shall give written notification to each issuing authority of the charge to be paid to them under this section by the issuing authority, for each quarter of the relevant accounting year, in respect of a travel concession permit issued under this section to an eligible London resident of each category which is valid on the first day of that quarter.

(7) The charges payable by issuing authorities under this section—

(a) shall be fixed by London Regional Transport with a view to securing that the costs of the operation of the free travel scheme are met from the proceeds of those charges (taking one accounting year to which the scheme applies with another, where the scheme applies to two or more consecutive accounting years); and
(b) may differ for different quarters of an accounting year.

(8) The reference in subsection (7)(a) above to the costs of the operation of the free travel scheme is a reference, in relation to any accounting year of London Regional Transport taken into account in fixing any charges under that subsection.. to the aggregate of—

(a) the revenue by way of fares which London Regional Transport estimate they and any subsidiaries of theirs have lost or will lose in that year in consequence of the provision of free travel under the scheme; and
(b) any other costs which London Regional Transport have incurred or estimate that they will incur in that year in connection with providing or for the purpose of securing the provision of free travel under the scheme (including any payments London Regional Transport have made or propose to make for that purpose to any person with whom they have entered into an agreement by N, irtue of section 3(2) of this Act).

(9) Before the end of the first month of each quarter of the relevant accounting year, each issuing authority shall—

(a) pay to London Regional Transport, in respect of each travel concession permit issued by that authority and valid on the first day of that quarter, the charge fixed by London Regional Transport under this section for that quarter which is applicable to that permit;
(b) provide London Regional Transport with a written statement giving the particulars required by subsection (10) below with respect to the travel concession permits supplied to the authority by London Regional Transport under this section; and
(c) if required to do so by London Regional Transport, return to London Regional Transport all such permits which have not been issued by the authority before the beginning of that quarter.

(10) The particulars required by this subsection in any statement under subsection (9)(b) above with respect to any quarter of the relevant accounting year are—

(a) the number of such permits issued to eligible London residents of each category which are valid on the first day of that quarter;
(b) the number of such permits so issued (if any) which expired or were surrendered to the authority during the last preceding quarter; and
(c) the number of such permits supplied for issue to eligible London residents of each category which have not been issued by the authority before the beginning of the quarter for which the statement is required.

(11) In the application of section 48(7)(c) of this Act for the purposes of the free travel scheme and this section, the reference to the opinion of the local authority or any of the local authorities there mentioned shall be read, in relation to persons resident in the area of an issuing authority, as a reference to the opinion of that authority.

(12) The annual report of London Regional Transport under section 33 of this Act with respect to the relevant accounting year shall contain a statement of—

(a) the manner in which the charges fixed under this section in respect of each quarter of that year were calculated; and
(b) the aggregate of the amounts paid to London Regional Transport during that year by the issuing authorities under this section'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

REQUIREMENTS AS TO SCOPE AND UNIFORMITY OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR TRAVEL CONCESSIONS UNDER SECTION 48(1)

`(1) Arrangements under section 48(1) of this Act for travel concessions for London residents meet the requirements of this section as to scope if they provide for the grant of travel concessions to all eligible London residents on relevant journeys on all services under the control of London Regional Transport (subject to any terms, limitations or conditions with respect to the particular journeys on any such services on which any such concession is available to eligible London residents of any category).

(2) Arrangements under section 48(1) of this Act for travel concessions for London residents meet the requirements of this section as to uniformity if they—

(a) make the same provision for all eligible London residents of the same category, with respect to the benefit of any travel concessions granted to those residents under the arrangements and the periods during which it is available;
(b) make the enjoyment of the benefit of any travel concession granted under the arrangements conditional on the production, by any person seeking to travel under that concession, of a travel concession permit issued to him in accordance with the arrangements; and
(c) make the same provision with respect to the period of validity of all travel concession permits issued in accordance with the arrangements to eligible London residents of the same category;
whether or not, in any other respects, the arrangements make different provision for different cases in which they apply.

(3) References in subsection (2) above to the benefit of a travel concession are references to the waiver or reduction of any fare or charge to which the arrangements in question apply, as distinct from any terms, limitations or conditions applicable to that waiver or reduction in accordance with the arrangements.

(4) Where individual arrangements under section 48(1) made between a particular local authority or local authorities and London Regional Transport apply to certain eligible London residents only, all arrangements so made shall be considered together for the purpose of determining whether subsections (1) and (2) above are satisfied.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

PROVISIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF TRAVEL CONCESSIONS BY INDEPENDENT TRANSPORT OPERATORS

`It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State

(1)(a) subject to subsection (2) below to consider any request received from a London authority in relation to the provision of travel concessions by an independent transport operator as defined in subsection 48(8) of this Act and, if he considers it appropriate, to direct such an operator to provide travel concessions to persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection 48(7) of this Act similar to those concessions which are from time to time available on services provided by London Regional Transport and the Railways Board
(b) in relation to subsection (a) above, if he considers it appropriate, to give directions as to the maximum payments which may be made by a local authority to an independent transport service operator for the provision of travel concessions under this Section.

(2) No direction under subsection 1(a)above shall be made by the Secretary of State for the provision of travel concessions by any independent transport operator unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that financial provision for them will be made pursuant to subsections (1) and (3) of section 48 of this Act. '.—[Mr. Prescott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 268.

Division No. 227]
[7.40 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
George, Bruce


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Alton, David
Gould, Bryan


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Harman, Ms Harriet


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Haynes, Frank


Barnett, Guy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Barron, Kevin
Heffer, Eric S.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Beith, A. J.
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bell, Stuart
Howells, Geraint


Benn, Tony
Hoyle, Douglas


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boyes, Roland
Janner, Hon Greville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Johnston, Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm
Kirkwood, Archibald


Buchan, Norman
Lambie, David


Caborn, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell, Ian
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cartwright, John
Loyden, Edward


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Hugh


Clarke, Thomas
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clay, Robert
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Coleman, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Conlan, Bernard
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Corbett, Robin
Marek, Dr John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Craigen, J. M.
Maxton, John


Crowthor, Stan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Meadowcroft, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Michie, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Nellist, David


Dormand, Jack
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Douglas, Dick
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
O'Neill, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Parry, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Patchett, Terry


Eadie, Alex
Pavitt, Laurie


Eastham, Ken
Pendry, Tom


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Penhaligon, David


Ellis, Raymond
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Redmond, M.


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fisher, Mark
Richardson, Ms Jo


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foster, Derek
Robertson, George


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rogers, Allan


Freud, Clement
Rooker, J. W.






Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Ryman, John
Tinn, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Torney, Tom


Sheerman, Barry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Weetch, Ken


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Welsh, Michael


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Steel, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John McWilliam.


Strang, Gavin



Straw, Jack





NOES


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Evennett, David


Amess, David
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Ancram, Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Fallon, Michael


Ashby, David
Farr, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Favell, Anthony


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baldry, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Freeman, Roger


Benyon, William
Gale, Roger


Berry, Sir Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Body, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, lan


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gregory, Conal


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Ground, Patrick


Budgen, Nick
Gummer, John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Hon Adam
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harvey, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, J.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cockeram, Eric
Heddle, John


Colvin, Michael
Henderson, Barry


Conway, Derek
Hickmet, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Hicks, Robert


Cope, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, James


Couchman, James
Hind, Kenneth


Crouch, David
Hirst, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dorrell, Stephen
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Holt, Richard





Hooson, Tom
Rowe, Andrew


Hordern, Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ryder, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hunter, Andrew
Shersby, Michael


Irving, Charles
Silvester, Fred


Jackson, Robert
Sims, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Skeet, T. H. H.


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Speed, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Speller, Tony


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Spencer, Derek


Key, Robert
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Squire, Robin


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lamont, Norman
Steen, Anthony


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stern, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lester, Jim
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stokes, John


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sumberg, David


Lord, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lyell, Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Terlezki, Stefan


Maginnis, Ken
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Major, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Marland, Paul
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mather, Carol
Thornton, Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Walden, George


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Mudd, David
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Murphy, Christopher
Wall, Sir Patrick


Needham, Richard
Waller, Gary


Newton, Tony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Nicholson, J.
Watson, John


Onslow, Cranley
Watts, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Whitfield, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wilkinson, John


Powley, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rhodes James, Robert
Wood, Timothy


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodcock, Michael


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Michael Neubert


Rost, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

DISREGARDED EXPENDITURE

'Local authorities by whom the cost incurred in granting concessionary travel falls to be reimbursed shall not be subject to any financial penalty in respect of expenditure incurred in the provision of concessionary travel under Section 48 of this Act.'. —[Mr. Prescott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Prescott: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 33, in clause 48, page 45, line 43, at end insert—
'(1A) Expenditure incurred by local authorities under this section shall be disregarded for the purposes of calculating local government overspending'.

Mr. Prescott: The Opposition are in some confusion over the Minister's explanation of how the Government intend to deal with equalisation. The new clause seeks to elicit further information from the Government about how the disregard expenditure will be dealt with and how the principle of equalisation of the costs and penalties involved will be applied. We wish to understand exactly how the costs of the concessionary scheme will be set against local authority expenditure, bearing in mind the Government's plans for rate capping, penalties, and so on, which the GLC is already suffering in relation to other local authority activities. In this case the rate precepting authority will be the Government. They will determine the rate precept and come to the House with an order to levy a rate on the ratepayers of London for their contribution towards the transport costs of the concessionary travel scheme.
We are concerned here with the free pass principle and the expenditure for the provision of a concessionary scheme. The cost will fall upon the 32 boroughs involved. They will have to find money to be paid to London Regional Transport for the provision of a concessionary scheme. I always find the fast-changing principles of local authority financing difficult to understand. At the best of times the general principles of local authority financing cause me some confusion. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us how the principle will work in this case.
I understand that the ratepayers will pay a proportion of the cost of the transport provided by London Regional Transport. In Committee and on Second Reading there was some argument about exactly what proportion the ratepayers should pay. The Secretary of State referred to some advertisements put out by the GLC according to which the ratepayers would be paying about 90 per cent. of the cost. Clearly there is a conflict of statistics here, but I believe that we have persuaded the Minister of State to recognise that the proportion paid by the ratepayers would be about 69 per cent. I hope that she will continue to bring the figure down, because the GLC itself seriously contests that figure. The figure may be closer to 50 per cent. One has to take into account the fact that moneys are denied to the GLC to the extent of £30 million for exceeding the expenditure level acceptable to the Government. The loss of that money is the penalty. In new clause 3 we are concerned with the effect of spending more than the limit set by the Government on local authority expenditure.
It is also relevant to the ratepayer—we will discuss this later in the debate—that that part of British Rail

which is now normally financed by passenger service obligation resources may become a charge on the ratepayer. The Secretary of State said that the two-thirds limit mentioned in the Bill should not be a limit for the PSO contribution. He said that the ratepayer should pay only 40 per cent. If the figure is 40 per cent.—and the Secretary of State said that that was a cockshy figure—that will be considerably more than any other local authority contributes through the PSO to the maintenance of the railway system. However, there is another clause in the Bill which deals with the PSO.
7.45 pm
The local authorities are to have a statutory obligation in regard to concessionary passes. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State have proudly claimed it as one of the advances of the Tory Government that the Government have intervened to introduce a central scheme for concessionary fares. One Conservative Member has asked why, if the Government are proud of statutorily imposing a minimum fares scheme, they cannot make it a requirement for the rest of the transport system. The answer to that question was avoided, but I am sure that when we debate the metropolitan authorities, the joint councils and the proposals in "Streamlining the Cities", that proposal will be to the fore. The Government are proud of acting centrally to determine a minimum concessionary scheme.
Reference has been made to my party's policy on a minimum scheme. The aim was that every citizen in the land should benefit from a minimum scheme and a concessionary fare. We were not prepared to lay down maximums. If local authorities wished to devise better and more generous systems, we were happy to concede that they could do so. Nevertheless, especially for those who live under Tory councils, the great likelihood is that there is no concessionary fare system, and pensioners are penalised because they live in Tory areas.
New clause 3 seeks to ensure that the cost of concessionary fares to the boroughs shall not constitute expenditure that will be liable to penalty if it brings expenditure above the level imposed upon the local authorities by the Department of the Environment and which the local authority cannot exceed without incurring penalties. Clearly the extra cost of a concessionary scheme will be an extra burden on the boroughs, and there is no guarantee that that expenditure will be disregarded.
Many authorities are operating very near to the line, if not over it. They are now to be given another statutory responsibility, even though it is wrapped in the idea that this is something that they can do for themselves and that the Government are taking only unofficial powers to oblige them to do it. There is, to all intents and purposes, to be a statutorily enforced concessionary scheme, and the cost will not come out of the rate precept. It will be an extra cost to be carried by the local authority.
The Government argue that they are providing a state guaranteed minimum concessionary scheme. In reality, the Government are setting the conditions and the local authority must find the resources. Why should the authority be penalised and lose further grants and resources simply because it is carrying out its statutory obligation to provide a concessionary scheme? What we are worried about is that the cost of the concessionary scheme may render the council liable to penalties.
It is clear that payment by the boroughs for the provision of the passes will be based on how many passes are issued and not on the rateable value. The rate of 1p or 3p in the pound levied by the GLC for the concessionary system has at least some fair association with wealth, in the sense that it is related to rateable value. Under the new scheme the deciding factor will be how many people apply and pay for passes.
As we have heard in Committee, and as the Government are certainly aware, the needs of different areas vary considerably. From the various papers that were available to the Committee, and to other hon. Members who wished to see them, it is clear that the number of pensioners in different areas varies considerably. As I have pointed out before, the equalisation principle on which the existing GLC scheme is run means that the 3p rate is the cost to all the boroughs, irrespective of how many pensioners there are in each area.
8 pm
Bromley, that reactionary authority that started the trend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The pensioners are not saying, "Hear, hear", and I am not sure that ratepayers in Bromley will do so when they see the consequences of buying the GLC's concessionary scheme at 5·9p in the pound, when it used to be 3p in the pound. I hear no more, "Hear, hears". Ratepayers in Bromley will certainly not be saying, "Hear, hear", because they will have to pay twice as much for less than they received under the GLC. I do not know whether ratepayers in Bromley will be satisfied to learn that, their money having been used in a court case, a businesslike way in which to run transport is to have less for twice as much money. If that represents the fruits of Bromley's victory, I hope that ratepayers there will start asking about the people who put them in those circumstances.
Tory councillors on the GLC say that 28 out of the 32 boroughs will pay more than they now pay under the equalisation principle of 3p in the pound. Many Tory-controlled authorities will be seriously affected if equalisation is not applied. The Secretary of State tells us that the concessionary fares scheme costs nearly £60 million, but the GRE is only about £28 million to £30 million. The Government are now deciding how much money should be given for the provision of concessionary passes and are saying that they should cost about £28 million to £30 million. They concede that the present scheme costs about £60 million, so someone must find the difference to maintain it.
Presumably the Government have achieved a good deal by knocking off off-peak travel. The assessment of the cost of the concessionary scheme is based on how many people travel at a set time. We assume that the Tory concessionary fares scheme will cost less than the present one because it will not cost as much to travel during the extra hour between 12 midnight and 1 am as between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm, as not many pensioners want to change their travelling habits and travel at 1 am rather than between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm. We cannot be wrong about that latter judgment. However, boroughs paying £2·6 million under the present scheme will be assessed as receiving only £1·4 million under the GRE. Therefore, unless the cost of the scheme is cut they will receive only part of the necessary money.
If the Bill is intended — it is the Government's declared policy—to do away with artificially low fares

which the Government believe appertain in metropolitan areas, and especially in London, every 1 per cent. increase in the fare will increase the cost of concessionary fares by £500,000. Leaving aside the extra cost resulting from fares increases, the boroughs will incur extra cost resulting from fares increases, the boroughs will incur extra cost because they will have to pay more if they have more pensioners, because they will have to purchase concessionary fares as they will no longer come out of the rate precept and because of the general level of price increases.
There should be some form of equalisation between poorer areas or those with greater need and, for example, the City which does not have to meet great need and is wealthy.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Am I not right in thinking that, in assessing the figures for grant-related expenditure, the Department of the Environment takes account of whether an area is poor or rich, the number of pensioners in it and the needs of people there?

Mr. Prescott: That is a fair point. I am on dodgy ground when talking about grant-related expenditure, as I have no background in local authorities, especially local authority finance. Needs are assessed and often averaged out in the GRE. However, that argument is relevant to only half of the cost of the concessionary scheme. The Government's argument on new clause 7 was that they were keeping the same scheme and that it was only the scare stories put out by the Opposition that had made them give statutory force to the uniform scheme. The fact remains that the boroughs would have insisted that they would not spend their money, and therefore incur penalties, to provide a concessionary scheme if the choice was left to them. The whole point was to maintain the unity of the system and not have a 50 per cent. fares scheme here and a voucher scheme there. That is the real reason for the Government's new clauses.
Local authorities might tell the Government that, if the scheme is statutorily enforced, the Government should pay for it. Indeed, that is what local authorities, even Tory-controlled ones, are saying. We are making it clear that they must provide and pay for the scheme. They are being told that they must meet the cost and that if that leads to over-expenditure they will lose money and pay more. It will therefore be possible to have a concessionary scheme that costs £1 million and, with penalties, costs £2 million. That is a rather savage way in which to deal with local authorities. Moreover, it will be local authorities with a large number of pensioners in their areas which will bear the heaviest burden. It will not be the City, but the Bromleys that will carry the burden. In that regard, equalisation is crucial.
The Secretary of State has said that it will be possible to deal with all of these problems under the GRE. He referred us to schemes in "Streamlining the Cities" which concerned the GLC and the other metropolitan counties. The financial arrangements in chapter 5 of the White Paper say little about how to deal with local authorities with regard to the provision of concessionary schemes. It talks about the problem of what will be done for equalisation when we have joint boards and anxieties about rate precepts, but there is nothing about how to deal with the problem of transportation. Will the Department of the Environment determine the structure and cost? How will the system work? It will not be worked through the rate


precept, because the Secretary of State will do that. Presumably it can be done only with the Department of the Environment through GRE. The Government measuring up to only half of the cost will not be much relief to local authorities, as the Government maintain that the scheme will be kept in its present form. I do not believe that the answers that we have been given are satisfactory, even to someone with my limited knowledge of local authority financing. We look forward to the Secretary of State elucidating the matter.
In voting for the new clause, hon. Members will vote for the principle that the expenditure will be disregarded and will not impose a further penalty on Londoners. This measure is not unprecedented. I understand that policemen's pay was seen as disregarded expenditure. Under this Government, the House has allowed for extra payments to the police to be considered as disregarded expenditure. Pensioners' payments, given the penalties and burdens that may be imposed by this unfair way of financing a concessionary fare system, must be considered in the same way as policemen's pay.

Mr. Edward Leigh: In opposing the amendment, I confess that I am sympathetic to the case made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He made out a case for boroughs to be given a choice in deciding whether to adopt a concessionary fares scheme.

Mr. Prescott: No.

Mr. Leigh: That aspect was put to us by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The inclusion of clause 48, requiring local authorities to have a concessionary fares scheme, means imposing on them, two years in advance, a considerable financial burden. On balance, I should have preferred the boroughs to be left to their own devices in deciding whether to impose the scheme. The scare campaign about this Bill, which was led by the Greater London council, meant that the Secretary of State thought it advisable and necessary to state in the original Bill a determination that, if necessary, the boroughs must have this scheme. The Secretary of State, in considering new clause 3, is under pressure to agree, two years in advance, to exempt the boroughs from that expenditure. We cannot force the boroughs to abide by that measure. That would be ridiculous.
I am sympathetic to the points made about grant-related expenditure and targets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) said, the number of elderly people in a borough is often considered in deciding grant-related expenditure, but that factor is often not reflected in the targets for the borough set by the Department. I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain to the House how the target figures set for boroughs will take account of the new burdens imposed on them by clause 48.
I hope that, by limiting the scheme and restricting it to off-peak travel, the burden placed on local authorities will be less than if the existing GLC scheme were allowed to continue. The continuation of the GLC scheme would impose a considerable burden. The boroughs should therefore be given an opportunity to impose a small administrative charge, and they can do so under clause 48. If that did not happen—this has been explained to us—

boroughs such as Bromley and Richmond might be under considerable burden. I hope that those points are helpful to the House.

Mr. Ridley: I am happy to respond now, if that is convenient to the House. I apologise to other hon. Members who may still wish to speak. It might be helpful if I answered the questions put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and amplified what my hon. Friend the Minister for State said earlier and what I said in Committee about the method of financing and the difficulty of giving precise answers about this matter. It is not easy to be precise, because we have not seen the abolition Bill or fully worked out our policy on this matter.
8.15 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said, it will be two years before we work out the sums. My hon. Friend said also that hon. Members representing London constituencies have felt that the concessionary fares scheme is so important it should be enshrined in the legislation. They said that we were right to give way to the demands for reassurance, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for saying that. My hon. Friend said that one cannot then put the Government under pressure to exempt local authorities from the consequences. The consequences of writing a concession into the statute must lie where they fall, and most hon. Members have accepted that the financing of the concessionary fares scheme should be included in local authorities' responsibilities.
The rate precept for financing London Regional Transport is very different. It is a levy imposed by an order of the House on all London ratepayers, on top of what they may have to pay to their boroughs, to fund the subsidy to LRT. None of the complicated formulae for local government finance will apply to that finance. It is a separate and different type of finance.
It may be convenient to the House if I say how the system might be adapted.

Mr. Spearing: My raising this point will save time later and get it out of the way. In the right hon. Gentleman's last remark about the rate precept, is he saying that the precept on the boroughs imposed by Order in Council and by order of the Secretary of State will be outside the mechanisms of rate capping or GRE, whichever exists?

Mr. Ridley: I do say that. The precept is outside any of the controls on local authority spending. The cost of the concessionary fares scheme will be within whichever mechanism is applicable.

Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend is making an important distinction, which is central to the argument. In as much as the Government, in their wisdom, have heeded Londoners' advice and incorporated in statute the requirement that a reserve power should be available in case boroughs do not continue a free fare scheme, is it not true that the Government would be remiss if they did not also ensure that the local authorities, which must finance the concessionary fares scheme, are able to do so? It would be dangerous and wrong if they were subject to penalty for carrying out something the Government require.

Mr. Ridley: I understand the principle that my hon. Friend is enunciating. I hope that he will let me take him through some complicated aspects, and then he can assess the position.
GREs are a nationwide indicator based on national criteria of what it is right for an authority to have as an aim in its expenditure. The sum of the GREs determines the amount of rate support grant for the authority. In London, the GREs are under half the cost of the concessionary fares scheme. That does not necessarily mean that the GREs are too low—it is evidence that the London concessionary fares scheme is both generous and expensive and, therefore, above the GREs. It would not be right to change the GREs simply because one authority is spending a great deal more than others. The GREs will be determined on the national levels, as they have been hitherto, bearing in mind the average performance by all authorities, including the shire and metropolitan counties.
The concessionary fares scheme will be cheaper in London, partly because we have made it off-peak —which will save £10 million—and partly because some —I hope many—boroughs will come back into grant and obtain rate support grant towards the cost of their contribution to the concessionary fares scheme. That cannot happen now because the GLC is way out beyond grant because of its overspending. But any boroughs within their targets will obtain some rate support grant towards offsetting the cost of the scheme.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is a ludicrous position when the GRE assessment is higher than the overall target set by the Department of the Environment. A number of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have been getting at the Secretary of State for the Environment because the GREs that have been assessed from Marsham street come out at a greater level than the targets set — which is the absurdity of GREs when trying to assess the level of service.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman takes me not only outwith the careful analysis that I am trying to make of this problem, but outwith my departmental responsibility. He should address his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Wilkinson: This is an important point. Is it not a fact that the target that central Government sets for local government expenditure has been constantly declining in real terms? Have not even virtuous authorities, such as mine, been increasingly squeezed? That being so, how can my right hon. Friend — and I am trying to be as charitable as I can—say that matters are likely to be better and that there will be the leeway to find the £20 million difference for which we are looking?

Mr. Ridley: I did not say that. I said that if any London borough brought its expenditure below target and, therefore, became in receipt of grant, its expenditure on concessionary fares would be grant-aided by RSG. However, if it cannot economise and bring itself within target, that will not apply. There is an added incentive for boroughs to be economical.
Once a target has been set, when the expenditure of any given authority goes over that target holdback begins and becomes quite savage. It would be wrong for the Government to set targets for local authorities that are unrealistic in relation to the new functions and

responsibilities that will be put on them by the abolition of the GLC. As is well known, many functions will be transferred to the boroughs on the abolition of the GLC, of which concessionary fares is just one. Others will be housing, roads, waste disposal and sewerage responsibilities. We need not go into the totality of them other than to say that a whole range of new functions will be transferred to the boroughs.
It is right that the new targets for the boroughs in two years hence should be calculated to take account of any change in their responsibilities. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) seeks. I cannot be more specific because we do not remotely know what will be the state of the finances of the 33 London boroughs in two years hence, what will be contained in the abolition Bill, what the House will do to amend it or what my right hon. Friend will have for rate support grant in two years hence. Indeed, there are so many uncertainties that I cannot do more than give the undertaking that the new targets will be calculated to take into account the change in responsibilities.
The next item is disregard, which means that if an authority spends money on an item that is disregarded, and would otherwise have taken that authority above target, that is disregarded for the purposes of the target. There would be no holdback because of spending on a disregard item. However, there could be loss of rate support grant in certain circumstances, but that is not the same as holdback.
The only disregards so far are a few matters to do with the increases during the past year in the urban programme, civil defence and police pay and costs. Those are special matters that the Government feel are in a different category from the subject we are discussing. I doubt whether it is likely that my right hon. Friend will feel that concessionary fares should be disregarded.
There are two ways of not hitting targets—one is to increase the target and the other is to disregard the expenditure for target purposes. Therefore, what I have said about targets is not entirely different from what is sought in the new clause. There is a profound difference in the sense that the treatment is different, although in both cases the particular obligation on the boroughs would be recognised.
The London equalisation scheme is peculiar to London, and has always been with us in one form or another. The GLC, because it has a rate precept over the whole of the boroughs, performs the equalisation function. When the GLC ceases and the responsibilities are shouldered again by the boroughs, it will be necessary to have some similar form of equalisation.

Mr. Tony Banks: I want to make a small correction. The GLC's powers will not be given back to the boroughs —the boroughs have never had the powers that they are about to receive from the GLC. If the Secretary of State does not understand that, he does not understand what led to the creation of the GLC. If the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who keeps muttering, thinks that I have it wrong, he should intervene.

Mr. Ridley: At one stage there was the London county council and then there was the GLC. The only point that I am making is that by one means or another the fact that there are three rich London boroughs and 30 poor ones has


been acknowledged in the system by treating the income of London as a whole and redistributing it to a certain extent.

Mr. John Cartwright: What the Secretary of State was indicating was that the powers to operate concessionary fares were going back to the London boroughs. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was disputing that, there is no question but that the boroughs had those powers.

Mr. Prescott: That was not the point he was making.

Mr. Cartwright: That was what I understood him to be suggesting. If he was not suggesting that, I withdraw the comments I made.

Mr. Ridley: I do not think I was suggesting that. My history is not good enough, but I doubt whether there were concessionary fares anywhere before the GLC was set up. I think they were introduced in 1973.

Mr. Prescott: There have been concessionary fares since 1955.

Mr. Ridley: I said that my history might be faulty. We are being drawn into an argument which is not necessary from the point of view of the debate.
In implementing our commitment to avoid any major shift in the relative burden on ratepayers in different parts of London we do not envisage any change in the present machinery or the principles on which it works. We shall, however, be considering in the London boroughs whether the present scale and incidence of the scheme will have to be altered. We cannot be dogmatic now about what this will mean in terms of shifting resources from one borough to another. The calculation is very complex and depends on a thorough examination by the boroughs and by central Government.
The details of the calculation do not matter. It is the effect of the calculation that is the key thing. Here I can assure the House, as I said, that we want to avoid any major shift in expenditure. There is no question whatsoever of hiding anything about this. As I have already explained, many decisions will have to be taken before it will be possible to put it more clearly. I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that one could not give a forthright undertaking. In the difficult circumstances, that is probably as far as he would expect me to go.
I hope that explains the situation. The London equalisation scheme and the targets are the parts of the spectrum to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be looking to accommodate as far as possible the cost of the scheme. It would be wrong to leave the House with any feeling that because London has chosen as one of its priorities to have a generous scheme of concessionary fares in some way it will be compensated specifically because of that. Clearly my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle would not wish Lincolnshire to be penalised because it had a particularly cheap scheme.

Mr. Leigh: It has no scheme at all.

Mr. Ridley: If Lincolnshire and London have different priorities, those priorities should be allowed to have their own consequences on the whole financial position of the authorities.
I hope the House will accept that that is the best endeavour I can make to give a fairly clear guideline. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause because I am not sure that the drafting is perfect for such a complicated problem.

Mr. Cartwright: The House is grateful to the Secretary of State for taking us through the complexities of local government finance in Greater London, but he has not done much to reassure those of us who are concerned about the future financing of the concessionary fares scheme. In passing, may I say that I am sad that we are going backwards. The reason why I intervened in the comment of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was that I was deeply involved in the negotiations of the original overall London concessionary fares scheme negotiated by the London Boroughs Association and paid for by the London boroughs. It was a heavy responsibility on some London boroughs.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not want to make a meal of this, but I intervened in the speech of the Secretary of State because he was talking about services and mentioned housing, sewerage and so on. Of course I knew very well —in fact, better than the Secretary of State—that the individual boroughs were operating these schemes and that it was not until 1973 that the GLC introduced a London-wide scheme. I was referring to the Secretary of State's reference to the boroughs getting back other powers which they never had.

Mr. Cartwright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that.
The problem which many London boroughs faced in financing schemes of their own was that the burdens were very heavy. As an active member of the London Boroughs Association at the time, I must point out that it was not easy to get agreement among all the boroughs. Some were more enthusiastic about concessionary fares than others. For that reason it was a great relief when, after 1973, the GLC took over the funding of a scheme. It was also a much fairer system, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) pointed out.
The financing through the GLC meant that the costs were shared out on the basis of rateable value and that the wealthier boroughs took a larger share than the poorer boroughs. That was a fair arrangement, particularly since, by and large, the poorer boroughs had larger numbers of elderly residents who depended on the bus service as a means of getting about. Therefore, I am sad that the overall London approach is disappearing and that we have to go back to the arrangement of the boroughs collectively having to fund the continuation of the scheme.
The Secretary of State did not grasp the traditional grievance in local government that Ministers are very good at laying new duties and responsibilities on local authorities and taking credit for them, but they are not quite so good at providing the resources that are necessary to carry them through. When it comes to accepting that duties and responsibilities have to be paid for, we find that Ministers are apt to complain that local authorities are spending more so that they may carry out the duties that have been laid upon them. That is an aggravating attitude


to the traditional financing of local government. It is much worse when we have the current stick or carrot target and penalty system. Some local authorities will move into the penalty area as a result of the extra burden of paying for the concessionary fares scheme.
It will be even worse under the rate-capping system, because local authorities that are driven into the rate-capping area because of the extra expenditure on concessionary fares will suffer considerably in the sense of losing control over their own right to spend at the level they feel appropriate and their own right to levy a certain rate.

Mr. Parris: I do not pretend to understand local government financing; very few hon. Members do, but that is another debate. As I understand it, both the rate-capping powers and the financial penalty powers relate to circumstances in which an authority has exceeded its target. I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that targets will take account of extra spending on concessionary fares.

Mr. Cartwright: He has, but I shall come to that later. Obviously a great deal depends on the view of the target. My experience is that it is like looking through the opposite end of a telescope. A target that seems to be fair and reasonable when viewed from Marsham street sometimes becomes difficult to achieve when viewed by the local authority.
I want to deal first with grant-related expenditure, because in a sense it is suggested from the Conservative side that grant-related expenditure assessments are scientific assessments of what should be spent by individual local authorities. I find that hard to accept. Indeed, during the long Committee stage of the Rates Bill even Ministers did not argue that. Ministers from the Department of the Environment accepted that the GREAs were what they called rough justice in assessing the need to spend in individual local authorities. Every inner London local authority, Labour-controlled and Tory-controlled, spends a great deal in excess of its grant-related expenditure assessment on social services.
That is a clear sign that the figures do not take account of what needs to be spent. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East reminded us, and the Secretary of State accepted, that the GRE figures for concessionary fares were less than half the actual spending level. The London Boroughs Association—a Conservative-controlled local authority body—pointed out earlier this year that if the GRE figures were not raised there would be considerable difficulties for individual local authorities.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman was not in his place earlier when I also gave the GRE and concessionary fares spending figures for the shire counties, where the GRE is exactly twice the spending level. Therefore, we have one set of authorities, the shire counties, spending half the GRE, and London spending twice the same GRE. That shows that London is spending four times more per pensioner than the shire counties. In other words, it does not work in quite so straightforward a way as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Cartwright: That demonstrates the stupidity of the whole GRE system — that where the need for concessionary fares is clear and established and is being met, the GRE is far too low, and where a local authority,

for good reasons, does not think that it is an important service, the GRE figure is much higher than is needed to meet the perceived need by that local authority. That demonstrates that the system does not work.
I was arguing in relation to the GRE situation in Greater London—the Secretary of State clearly accepted this—that if the London boroughs continue with a scheme as good as the existing one, that will involve a number of boroughs risking going into the penalty area for the operation of the target system; indeed, a number of them are already in that area.
The same is true when it comes to rate capping, because a number of authorities already earmarked under the criteria for rate capping by the Secretary of State for the Environment are in inner London. For example, my local authority in Greenwich qualified under every one of the 11 possible criteria for rate capping, so it is already over the top. The additional expenditure on concessionary fares will not ease its problems.
The Secretary of State has given an undertaking that when we come through this extremely uncertain period and the problem must be faced, at that point, when targets are being fixed, he will take into account the additional spending that local authorities must undertake on concessionary fares. I welcome that assurance as far as it goes, but I hope the Secretary of State will not think me ungracious when I say that we have had assurances of that sort before from Ministers in this Government.

Mr. Parris: What about previous Governments?

Mr. Cartwright: Perhaps that can be said of all Governments. It can certainly be said of the present Administration, who have introduced a complex system of central Government control of local government expenditure. For example, we were told by the Government that GRE would never be used as a means of controlling local authority expenditure, but merely as a means of allocating grant. That assurance has gone out of the window. I am, therefore, somewhat dubious about the Secretary of State's assurance. In any event, as I said earlier, it depends at which end of the target one is when one decides whether it is reasonable to meet it.
I agreed with the Secretary of State when he referred to the considerable uncertainties that surround this whole area. Although I would not go along with everything that the present adminstration at county hall says, I can understand the GLC leadership saying that this is an important issue for millions of London pensioners and that, therefore, it is not unreasonable to try to unravel some of the uncertainty that surrounds it.
We have not succeeded in doing that tonight. I hope, therefore, that the new clause will be pressed to a Division as a means of encouraging the Government to come clean in future and as a means of making it clear to local authorities that some of us understand the problem that they face in continuing a decent concessionary fares scheme for London's pensioners.

Mr. Wilkinson: This is an important debate which exemplifies, as has been exemplified during previous stages of the Bill, the difficulty of what I would describe as legislating in vacuo. Because we do not know the future form and structure of London's government, we are in the present predicament.
Indeed, the predicament of the transport ministerial team reminds me of that magnificent Greek sculpture of Laocoon and his two sons in the constricting embrace of a mighty python and unable to release themselves. I was about to say that my right hon. Friend is rather like a ram in the thicket, but he is too elegant and artful a politician to be so described.
The problem is that the system of local government finance is fundamentally flawed. The Secretary of State faces many uncertainties in getting the Bill on to the statute book, and no debate has brought home to us more fully than the one in which we are now engaged the importance of recognising that if we will the end—as we have in voting for a uniform and statutory concessionary fares system—we must also vote the means.
The Secretary of State was as generous as ever, in spirit, in saying that he felt sure that the grant-related expenditures would be looked at carefully to take account of the extra costs of providing for the concesssionary fares scheme that would fall on the boroughs. However, we have heard that many times before. It is always jam tomorrow. But even that is not what we are asking for. We are simply asking that local authorities should not be penalised in the exercise of their other duties by having to carry out responsibilities that are being placed on them by the Bill. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Ridley: I did not say that grant-related expenditures would be looked at carefully. I referred to the targets. It is important that there should be no mistake about that.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for correcting what was a clear mistake. That shows how careful one must be when dealing with this esoteric terminology. The trouble is that when we talk about targets, nobody comprehends how they are computed. It is some arcane formula; we do not know where it comes from or how it is worked out. We hope that a few high-powered officials at the Department of the Environment comprehend it and we are reasonably certain that borough treasurers comprehend it, because they must work to it.
However, at a practical level we understand the effect. In my part of London, the effect has been that the good Conservative local authority in my area, which for some years had as its leader my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), has done everything that the Government want but finds itself exceeding its target and being penalised. The penalisation system is rotten because we say that grant will be withdrawn because an authority has overspent, and the last state of that authority after the penalty is worse than the first, which makes it a perverse system.
I would not wish the House to leave this debate without understanding that, by abolishing the GLC, we are taking away an efficient and useful system of financing concessionary fares. It is uniform and equitable, it works, it requires no particularly complicated machinery, and it has much to recommend it. That is why Cyril Taylor, the GLC member for my constituency who is the Tory transport spokesman on the GLC, in his admirable Bow Group paper on the reform of London's government, pointed out that the system of the GLC for financing concessionary fares is much easier to implement than the one that will have to be worked out which will have the

deficiency, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) explained, that the charges will be based not upon rateable value, but upon the number of passes issued.
To take my constituency as an example, one populous ward, Northwood Hills, has a very high population of old-age pensioners, and they will need to use these free passes. In outer London, one has to use the tube, if one wishes to see one's relatives and so on. As things stand, an authority such as mine, that has already exceeded the target, will have compounded the problem of getting within the target of expenditure set by Government, unless Government can in truth translate the assurance that my right hon. Friend has given into reality in a couple of years' time.
I do not know whether you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the conclusion of the interesting rate support grant settlement debate. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), gave the verbal assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), the former Foreign Secretary, that next year there will be no problem for virtuous authorities such as Cambridgeshire or Hillingdon, because the Government will be more generous. We are not asking for assurances of generosity but that, by a clause such as this, or some other clause that the Government may come up with in another place, we do not put responsibilities upon local authorities without establishing the means to carry them out.
Having heard the arguments, I shall not oppose the Government in this matter. As my right hon. Friend has said, there are many uncertainties, and we are dealing with the future. In the current state of the argument, however, I shall not vote against the new clause.

Mr. Spearing: The debate has been remarkable for its quality in that it has seen the House working at its best in respect of very bad quality legislation. Courteous exchanges have taken place between Members of different parties on technical matters. There has been mild dissent from the Government Benches, which is always a healthy sign, but this is the most impenetrable—I was going to say dog's breakfast—legislation and local and central Government financial machinery. The amendment paper contains about two pages of impenetrable prose. We have been discussing GREAs, targets and equalisation schemes. I am sure that most people who use the tubes and buses in London will have no chance of understanding what we have been discussing. This comes from a Government who do not believe, or so they say, in large-scale legislation or in bureaucracy. That is the present state, and this high quality debate has illustrated it only too well.

Mr. Ridley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are discussing something that is not in the Bill, and which the Government are resisting putting into the Bill. It will be in a Bill in a year's time, but it is hardly fair for him to make those allegations when I am trying to stop the House pre-empting other legislation.

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that it is his Bill, and it is his policy to change the status quo. As illustrated by the hon. Member for Ruislip and Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), the status quo relating to travel for the elderly in London is pretty good, and local government, with the two-tier GLC and boroughs, is not all that bad either. The Government are disturbing both


those to a large degree. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he is trying to meet requests, he is having to meet them in a structure that is very complex, and is brought about by the Government's ill thought-out policies. I can illustrate that by the right hon. Gentleman's response to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The right hon. Gentleman gave a necessarily complex exposition. He said that he hoped he had explained the matter, whereas in fact he had not. In summary, he said that we cannot tell whether this would be appropriate, because we do not know quite what will happen, and he asked us not to press the clause because it has not yet been worked out. That was the burden of the Secretary of State's speech. I am not at all sure that he understands the importance of public transport in London to elderly people. If he did, it would have been included in the Bill in a much simpler way when he introduced it, or the Government would not have introduced the legislation at all.
In the borough of Newham, only one tube line serves the people who are passing through the borough, with a criss-cross of bus routes. To get from one part of the borough to the other for shopping, hospital, doctor or such like, most elderly people relying on the bus—because car ownership in the borough is very low—have to use two, or maybe three, buses on a single journey. The old-age pensioner pass is a godsend. Conservative Members might say that they are playing God and that, after public pressure, they are extending the facility. There will be many problems, not exposed in the debate so far, particularly in relation to local government clawback, rate capping or whatever the Government have in store. Many sums that have been worked out by county hall, which have been bandied around in the debate, are based on what London Transport is currently charging the GLC for passes. There is no guarantee that that will be the charge in future, or that the charge will go up with the cost of living, if, indeed, the charge goes up at all. Judging from the Bill, there are suggestions that the charge might well increase. We know the Government's general attitude to making charges. Under clause 2 of the Bill the Secretary of State has dictatorial powers. The clause states:
It shall be the general duty of London Regional Transport, in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State
The right hon. Gentleman will have carte blanche to tell LRT what to do in respect of commercial policy and the policies that it will use to cost old-age pensioners' passes.
9 pm
I was even more worried by new clause 10, which states that LRT must provide information about plans which it considers,
appropriate for presenting their proposals in the context of past and current performance and policies of themselves and their subsidiaries.
What does the Secretary of State mean by "performance"? To judge from the Government's past use of the word, it will mean incomes, costs, profits and efficiency. Therefore, LRT might be under pressure to increase the cost of the passes above what it might do under the present system.
Even if that does not apply—although I fear that it will—the next problem for the boroughs is that they will have a statutory duty to supply the demand. Anyone who applies who is eligible for a pass must be supplied with one, and the boroughs must pay. That would be fine

were it not for the arbitrary limits on GREAs and targets. The boroughs will have no choice. The Government's clawback will represent a 50 per cent. tax to the borough of Newham, since if it spends £15 million more than the Government believe that it should it must charge ratepayers £30 million for the privilege of issuing passes. That will be the effect of the Government's attitude to local government expenditure. Unlike the position that would apply even with rate support grant, let alone percentage grants, where the boroughs cannot be disadvantaged by the rate-capping proposals, if enough people apply for concessionary passes the boroughs will be faced with the unenviable choice of doubling the rates for that service or cutting other services.
All those problems would be relieved if the Government accepted the new clause. There would be no dilemma and no unfair tax on the ratepayers in respect of those passes. Alas, for reasons that the Secretary of State explained at great length, he cannot accept the new clause tonight. Nor has he given a guarantee that he will do so in future. Indeed, he is paving the way for saying that the Government cannot accept that proposal. That is entirely illogical, given the fact that he gave the House the welcome news that the precept that LRT can make on the boroughs directly in respect of services will not be subject to GREA and target limits. If that is so, why does he not add expenditure on concessionary fares? If he did that, our fears would be set at rest, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood would be happy, and the Government would be more popular than they are at present.

Mr. Parris: "Concessionary fares" is a phrase for the compulsory sale of bus tickets. Money is confiscated from taxpayers and ratepayers, whether or not they wish to pay it, and bus passes are given to them whether or not they wish to use them. It might have occurred to Opposition Members that we also have concessionary Tridents. They are free at the point of use, but they are paid for by the taxpayer.
Nevertheless, there is an element of redistribution of wealth in granting concessionary fares, and for that reason it is right to provide them. However, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could take all the money which I hope he will manage to secure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay for concessionary fares and give it in cash to old-age pensioners in London each year to spend as they please, that would be a better way of doing it than giving them bus passes. The way in which we approach matters under our constitution is such that the money can be spent only on concessionary fares. They are all that we can offer and, for the reasons given by many of my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members, we are right to offer them.
When I look at the wording of the Opposition amendment, it is not quite clear to me what they mean by financial penalties. To the extent that a local authority exceeds its target and is penalised, in that sense it clearly has been penalised. To the extent that a local authority is within its target but has exceeded its grant-related expenditure and, therefore, has to fund all the extra spending out of its own rates and has none of it supported by central Government, one may say that that authority is in penalty in one sense. Although it is not actually being fined for every extra pound that it spends, it is having to find that money itself.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's suggestion probably strikes the right balance. He has suggested that it is right is that we take the extra spending on concessionary fares into account when adjusting targets, but that we do not, and cannot, take it into account when setting grant-related expenditure. That means that no local authority can be fined or penalised for extra spending on concessionary fares because the ceiling on its target will be raised, or ought to be raised, by that amount. As my right hon. Friend says, if someone does not want to hit his head against the ceiling he can either raise the ceiling or disregard certain cubits of his stature for the purposes of ceilings. He has chosen the first of the alternatives, and, to the extent that he is able to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to adjust targets to take account of spending on concessionary fares, he is probably right.
Where such a person would go too far—certainly too far for my constituents in West Derbyshire— is if he were to disregard spending on concessionary fares for the purposes of grant related expenditure. That would mean that every pound spent on concessionary fares, and as much as local authorities in London wanted to spend on concessionary fares, would have to be matched by a pound from central Government, more or less. That is roughly the proportion. That would not be right.
Many local authorities, many shire counties, many district councils, my own among them, do not feel that the right way to spend their money is through free off-peak travel for pensioners. Some give half-price off-peak travel for pensioners, others give no help with travel for pensioners at all. Each local authority makes up its own mind. It would probably feel that it had been made rather a mug of if it found that those authorities that were giving free off-peak travel to pensioners were having all that money matched by central Government, regardless of how much they wanted to spend. I should find myself facing a certain amount of criticism in my own constituency for voting that the taxpayers' money be spent in that way. I think that it is the ratepayers' money that should be spent in that way, but the ratepayer should not be punished for spending it in that way.
For that reason, the sort of compromise that my right hon. Friend has spoken about strikes the right balance.

Mr. Tony Banks: It has become painfully clear to Members on both sides of the House—it has probably come as a worse shock to the Members on the Government Benches than those on the Opposition Benches—that the concessionary fares scheme that the Government are now going to enshrine in statute will cost the boroughs a lot more than the present scheme costs them. I have heard nothing to gainsay that.
I want to ask the Minister, when she is summing up, to—[Interruption.] I understand that the Minister is not going to sum up, which is probably to her advantage, because it is clear that something that she said, before she left at the end of her shift and the Secretary of State came in for his, was a little difficult to follow. On reflection — I shall have to wait until I read Hansard— it is perhaps not altogether correct. The Minister can no doubt intervene to put my mind at rest.
As I understand it, there will be no question of equalisation being applied to concessionary fares. My hon.
Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) gave the Government the formula and said that if London Regional Transport is going to precept—we know that it will — included in the precept should be the cost of concessionary fares. If that were to be the formula, it would answer the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), because the House would be determining the scheme and providing the resources. As he correctly pointed out, there is no such provision at the moment, so we will be imposing a responsibility on the boroughs which we are not giving them adequate funds to discharge. We must look carefully to see how that will work. The Minister seemed to say that equalisation would apply, but the Secretary of State has made it clear that it will not.
The Minister quoted from the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities". As hon. Members on both sides have said, it is difficult for us to consider this legislation in a vacuum, knowing that it is predating the abolition of the GLC, which is something that might never reach the statute book. A nice mess that will leave us with.
It is clear in Cmnd. 9063 that equalisation will not apply to anything other than services which are transferred from the GLC to the boroughs. The concessionary fares scheme will already have been written into the London Regional Transport Bill and it will therefore not be the responsibility of the GLC. It will have gone from the GLC before the appointed day for its abolition.
There is no provision in the White Paper for equalisation for concessionary fares or transport services. A precepting authority is being set up to run London's transport—London Regional Transport. Block grant and grant-related expenditure assessment cause a great deal of anxiety to the Opposition because it is plain that London local authorities will attract block grant penalty by virtue of the concessionary fares scheme. It is difficult to know exactly when they will move into penalty. What is "at the margin"? It could be argued that this scheme or another form of service is at the margin. As all services are taken together for penalty purposes, it is difficult, if not impossible, to work out which service is attracting penalties.
If one studies the present provisions, one sees that the grant-related expenditure assessment for the GLC area in terms of concessionary fares is about half the money that the GLC currently spends on concessionary fares. We have had to juggle with peculiar acronyms such as GREAs, and with targets for so long that I hope that sooner or later we will be given the identity, rank and number of the civil servants who devised them.

Mr. Spearing: It is the Minister.

Mr. Banks: It must be civil servants. Even I would not suppose that politicians could be responsible for that type of mess, because GREAs pay no attention to any particular local authority problem. That is true of concessionary fares also.
The example of Bromley has been quoted. At the moment, Bromley's payment for the scheme proposed by the Government will be about £2·6 million. Under GREA it is only supposed to spend about £1·2 million. Bromley will have to find about £1·4 million in addition, which is not taken into account in its current GREA. That is poetic justice. I have no reason to feel much warmth and affection for Bromley.
9.15 pm
Unfortunately, not only Bromley will be caught up, but most of the other boroughs. Only four boroughs, if one takes the City as a borough, are making a net payment for the existing concessionary fares scheme. All the rest are net beneficiaries, although none of them will be net beneficiaries in future. The 28 or 29 remaining London boroughs will have to find additional money to pay for the scheme. The Bill does not provide for exemption from penalties. There is nothing within the precepting powers of LRT to allow them to escape from being penalised for operating a scheme that the House of Commons will have imposed upon them.
The Secretary of State, when I asked him about GREAs and targets, told me that the scheme relates to other areas of responsibility, such as those of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that the Ministers are talking among themselves. I know that there are divisions of opinion within the best ordered political parties, but unless the Secretary of State talks very closely to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I am afraid that we shall accept his good intentions but doubt his ability to deliver the goods. That is all that the House is interested in under the Bill.
Both sides of the House have expressed concern that the proposed scheme will cost the boroughs far more, and that they will attract penalties for operating it.

Mr. Cohen: I support the new clause which says that local authorities should not be afflicted with penalties for meeting the cost of the concessionary travel scheme. We hear that the GLC pays about £60 million to London Transport to finance the existing scheme and that its GREA is £28 million to £30 million. The figures will presumably be roughly similar when the scheme is transferred to the boroughs, so the boroughs will be penalised under these proposals.
We know that the statutory scheme will mean that local authorities must pay, but it should not mean that they also have to pay over the odds. That will happen in this case because the proposed scheme will inevitably impose penalties on authorities.
The Secretary of State referred to the concessionary fares scheme as London's choice, and said that the people should not be compensated for their choice. However, they are not being compensated; they are being penalised. That is what the whole debate is about.
The Secretary of State compared London with the shires. He said that Lincolnshire does not choose to spend its GREA on the transport needs of the people, and the benefit of that is that they get lower rates. It is the old lower rates versus provision of services argument. That is fair enough—it is what local electors decide all over the place — but the Secretary of State is distorting that process. If the services are provided as the GLC does with London Transport, and as the boroughs will do, they are penalised for it.
Many local authorities are already on the penalties borderline. Under the statutory scheme, if they are not disregarded for penalty purposes, they will be pushed over the edge and will have to make cuts in other services they provide, such as social services, housing and education.
We must also consider the effect of rises in fares. The decision to raise fares will be made not by the local councils but by LRT. If they rise, the cost of the concessionary travel scheme will go up as well. The gap

between that cost and what the boroughs get in their GREAs will also widen. As a result, there will be more penalties on the local authorities. Therefore, if LRT decides to raise fares, there will be an increase in the penalties on local councils, which cannot be fair.
Hon. Members have referred to equalisation. Conservative Members argued for it in Committee. It is not provided for in the Government's proposals. I hope that they will put their votes where their mouths are. There is not a proper equalisation scheme. A greater burden will be placed on the poor areas. The 10 poorest boroughs are on the Government's hit list in the Rates Bill. They are the ones that will be hit. That is especially unfair to them if there are many pensioners in the borough.
The Secretary of State said that one could either alter the target or disregard the expenditure for penalty purposes. He hinted that he would do the former. If he does so, the truth will be out. He is prepared to fiddle the targets for Conservative councils so that a penalty is not imposed upon them. The Secretary of State should do it the honest way and not penalise local authorities for doing their proper financial and statutory duty under the scheme.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Several representations have been made to me on this matter by pensioners in my constituency. Among other things, they have brought to my attention the movement of population over the years, especially in the post-war years. It has meant that the children of many of those born in inner city areas now live in outer London. Mobility is important for family contact. We do not have the extended family communities that we once had in the 1930s, and even the 1940s or the early 1950s. Travel is important to pensioners.
If one looks at the proposals, it is clear that the boroughs with the least resources and a higher than average proportion of pensioners because of the aging nature of the population in the inner city areas will be those least able to meet the costs. There is the dual phenomenon of a relatively high share of the elderly and the very young. In my borough of Lambeth, it is part of a syndrome of multiple deprivation. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in London, the highest youth unemployment, the highest unemployment of black school leavers and the highest proportion of single-parent families. Those factors are a heavy drain on resources in the London area, where we are penalised by the Government's present system.
It used to be thought by many concerned with transport — I recognise that the Secretary of State made his professional reputation by contesting this — that principles of costs and benefits should be assessed in transport policy. It is clear that for a considerable time it has been accepted not only by London but by metropolitan authorities elsewhere that the right to either subsidised or free travel for pensioners, like the right to a pension. was a basic social right.
This was broadly accepted by a generation of Conservatives of whom we see very little now. It was broadly accepted in the 1950s and the 1960s. It was broadly accepted in the period of Butler and Macmillan, when there was a consensus both that working people had a right to decent housing, health and education and that they had a right to a decent pension and decent travel facilities. Clearly this is now denied by the Government.

Mrs. Chalker: Rubbish.

Mr. Holland: The Minister says "Rubbish." I hope that, if she accepts that, she will amend the legislation now before the House.
This is not just boot-strap finance — the kind of finance to which the Government are very much addicted. They are going to knock down the boroughs that most need to be able to meet the cost of a provision of this kind. The Prime Minister once, going into No. 10 Downing street, quoted St. Francis of Assisi. In this case it would be more appropriate to quote loosely St. Matthew: to him or her that hath shall be given by those on the Benches opposite; from him or her that hath not shall be taken away.
It is a mean little provision, a wretched piece of legislation, and I therefore support the new clause.

Mr. Prescott: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman seek the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Prescott: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak again.
The Secretary of State, in his intervention on this clause, made it a little clearer why the message is not very acceptable to this side of the House. The argument that he has put against the new clause is that there are a number of reasons why he cannot accept our case that the expenditure incurred by the borough authorities in paying for the concessionary schemes should not lead to a penalty arising out of the Government's other legislation and targets set for local authorities and the penalties that they incur if they exceed those targets.
I should like to outline why we cannot accept the reasons given by the Secretary of State. For example, he has made it clear that the concessionary scheme, because it is now statutory, since enforcing powers have been put into the Bill, is a concession to those forces that wanted to make sure that the powers were there to enforce a uniform scheme. Therefore, since the Secretary of State is giving this as a concession, he does not feel it right that he should have to pay for it, but rather that the boroughs should pay for it. That is at the heart of the argument about locally provided services, paid for by local resources and determined in local democracy and the election of local councillors.
There is a great difference between the two sides of the House about that expression "in local democracy". It is the Government's position that in this case they are taking over the local services, and the argument is put forward, not only by Labour boroughs but by Tory boroughs, that if the Government are taking upon themselves the responsibility for providing transport in the London area, they should finance it. Clearly the Government do not accept that argument, but it is one that stretches across both Labour and Tory authorities. Therefore, the argument that it is a concession to put these statutory uniform powers in the Bill is not acceptable to us, because local authority services should be determined in a local democratic manner.
Secondly, the argument that the rate precept will pay for the transport and should not be used to pay for the concessionary scheme is contrary to the present system and to what applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Any concessionary scheme at present provided by the metropolitan authorities is paid for out of the rate precept. This is true at present also for the GLC. The Secretary of

State is proposing that the concessionary fare should be paid for by the boroughs, and general transport will be paid for by a combination of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money in the two-thirds/one-third relationship to which the Secretary of State so often refers.
We do not accept the argument that it is normal for the cost of concessionary fares to be found by local authorities. They should be financed out of the rate precept, as they are in the metropolitan authorities and other areas. The Government should have made their quality comparisons with the metropolitan authority schemes. Instead, however, the Secretary of State chose the shire schemes, which are very poor indeed. To the extent that they exist at all they are certainly very thin on the ground, and far inferior to those provided by the metropolitan authorities.
9.30 pm
The Secretary of State said that the rate expenditure consideration for the concessionary scheme was £30 million, but that the cost to the GLC was £60 million, arguing from that that the scheme was more generous than necessary and that the cost should therefore be reduced. He said that £10 million could be saved on the afternoon peak from 4.30 pm to 6.30 pm and that further savings could be made if the authority met the expenditure limit acceptable to the Government and thus avoided penalty. He actually said that he hoped that the money now withheld from the GLC as the penalty for excess expenditure would not be a problem for the Government because the limits acceptable to the Government would be met. I hope that that is indeed the Government's position, as it means that at least they are not institutionalising the penalties currently incurred by the GLC through providing what the Secretary of State describes as a more generous system.

Mr. Ridley: I said that if a borough did not exceed its target and was drawing block grant the cost of the concessionary fares scheme would be reduced by virtue of its coming back into grant. That is not to say that every borough will do that, but it represents a possibility for a borough to reduce the cost by coming back into grant.

Mr. Prescott: That may be so, though few authorities will be able to permit themselves the luxury of such adjustments when they already have great difficulty in adjusting to meet the Government's present targets. Nevertheless, we shall wait and see what happens. It is clear, however, that the Government are sticking to their argument that, whatever the cost of the concessionary scheme, it is for the boroughs to find the resources.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend accept that under provisions elsewhere in the Bill fares will undoubtedly increase, that every 1 per cent. increase in fares will add £500,000 to the cost of the current scheme and that that cost, too, will have to be borne by the boroughs? Does he agree that in those circumstances the way round the problem offered by the Secretary of State is unlikely to apply?

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. That was precisely our earlier point about the cost to local authorities if fares are increased, as the Government clearly intend. That would certainly add to the difficulties, even within the present expenditure limits.
We welcome the Government's recognition that there are richer and poorer authorities. I believe the Secretary


of State said that there were three rich ones and 30 poorer ones. That being so, there is a role for equalisation. The right hon. Gentleman talked about increasing the targets of the GRE because of the extra duties to be imposed upon authorities. That may or may not be achieved, but there is also the argument about what other changes will be made by other measures which have yet to come before the House. Of course we accept that the Bill must be consistent with existing legislation, but it is a different matter to say that it must be consistent with legislation which may be introduced in the future. The Government say that they cannot accept equalisation in connection with the new clause because other legislation which may be introduced may lead to much more complex assessments of how equalisation is to be achieved.
The Bill makes it clear that concessionary passes must be provided and paid for, but it provides no means for equalisation of the payment. I have no hesitation in advising my hon. Friends to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 248.

Division No. 228]
[9.35 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Barnett, Guy
Ellis, Raymond


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Ewing, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Blair, Anthony
Flannery, Martin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foster, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Freud, Clement


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Caborn, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell Ian
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Heffer, Eric S.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cartwright, John
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howells, Geraint


Clarke, Thomas
Hoyle, Douglas


Clay, Robert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Charles


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Craigen, J. M.
Lambie, David


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Leighton, Ronald


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Deakins, Eric
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dobson, Frank
Loyden, Edward


Dormand, Jack
McCartney, Hugh


Dubs, Alfred
McDonald, Dr Oonagh





McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rooker, J. W.


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McTaggart, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Maynard, Miss Joan
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Snape, Peter


Michie, William
Spearing, Nigel


Mikardo, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Nellist, David
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Tinn, James


Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Patchett, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pendry, Tom
Wareing, Robert


Penhaligon, David
Weetch, Ken


Pike, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
White, James


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Redmond, M.



Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Richardson, Ms Jo
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Robertson, George



Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Tom
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Ashby, David
Cockeram, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Coombs, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Anthony
Crouch, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Beggs, Roy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bellingham, Henry
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, William
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Body, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fallon, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Farr, John


Bottomley, Peter
Favell, Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brinton, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fox, Marcus


Bruinvels, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Freeman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Burt, Alistair
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Hon Adam
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butterfill, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorst, John






Grant, Sir Anthony
Nicholson, J.


Greenway, Harry
Onslow, Cranley


Gregory, Conal
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Ground, Patrick
Pink, R. Bonner


Gummer, John Selwyn
Pollock, Alexander


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powley, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hanley, Jeremy
Renton, Tim


Harris, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Harvey, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Miohael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hawksley, Warren
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hayes, J.
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Hayward, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rost, Peter


Heddle, John
Rowe, Andrew


Henderson, Barry
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hickmet, Richard
Ryder, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hirst, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shersby, Michael


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Silvester, Fred


Holt, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hooson, Tom
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Peter
Speed, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Speller, Tony


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Spencer, Derek


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Squire, Robin


Hunter, Andrew
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jackson, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Jessel, Toby
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Stokes, John


Key, Robert
Stradling Thomas, J.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sumberg, David


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lang, Ian
Terlezki, Stefan


Lawler, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thornton, Malcolm


Lester, Jim
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lilley, Peter
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lord, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Waddington, David


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Waldegrave, Hon William


Maples, John
Walden, George


Marland, Paul
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Mather, Carol
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Merchant, Piers
Wall, Sir Patrick


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Watson, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Whitfield, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Moynihan, Hon C.
Winterton, Nicholas


Mudd, David
Wolfson, Mark


Murphy, Christopher
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael
Woodcock, Michael


Newton, Tony
Yeo, Tim





Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. John Major and Mr. David Hunt.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 11

PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATION GRANTS

The public service obligation grants paid to British Rail for its railway services in the London Regional Transport area shall be paid directly by the Secretary of State for Transport to British Rail and shall not become a charge upon the London boroughs and their ratepayers without their agreement.'—[Mir. Snape]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Snape: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 53, in page 29, line 3, leave out clauses 35, 36, 37 and 38.

Mr. Snape: The Opposition believe that the implementation of part II offers no real prospect of much needed extra investment in London's rail services. On the contrary, we feel that the Bill threatens less investment and more expense to the ratepayers. I hope that, even at this early stage, I can convince both sides of the House of this essentially simple fact, but perhaps it is only simple to me.
Under the present public service obligation arrangements, real investment in London is inadequate. During our protracted debates in Committee —I do not know whether the Minister would call them that—we dealt in some detail with that aspect of the problem. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee referred to the contribution of the Select Committee on Transport to investment in British Rail within the London area. Indeed, we referred in Committee to the Select Committee report and specifically to paragraph 4.25, which stated:
British Rail gave us a graphic and familiar description of the effects of age and under-investment on their London and South East commuter services. There had, they said, been consistent under-investment in physical facilities and the inability to make proper provision for the future. This has resulted in a lowering of standards and a reduction in the quality of service provided. …At present, the level of investment is barely sufficient to maintain existing standards, let alone provide for the improvements in quality which are essential to ensure an attractive and efficient transport system.
In recent years, the GLC has taken it upon itself—quite rightly—successfully to supplement that pathetically inadequate investment in BR. Yet the only reward for the GLC is to be threatened with abolition under the legislation that we are discussing——

Mrs. Chalker: No.

Mr. Snape: For the sake of the Minister, I shall be entirely accurate. The GLC's transport function will be stripped from it under the legislation that we are discussing. The legislation to bring about its abolition will, presumably, be introduced in the none-too-distant future. I hope that that is not too pedantic for the Minister and that it provides an accurate account of the likely events to come —[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) wishes to stick in his sixpennorth at this point in the debate, I should be delighted to give way to him. If he does not, I should be grateful if he would be silent.
The Opposition believe that the implementation of part II will put Londoners in double jeopardy. They will have to pay twice over for railway services — both as taxpayers and as ratepayers. I regret that the Secretary of State, no doubt for good reason, has left the Chamber. I wanted to entertain — if that is the right word — the House with one or two of his quotations from our deliberations in Committee. However, I shall content myself by saying that it appears that the Secretary of State agrees about double jeopardy. On Tuesday 6 March, when discussing matters similar to those now before the House, the right hon. Gentleman said:
At present, the burden of subsidy for LRT services only will fall under the two-thirds ratepayers/one-third taxpayers ratio, as provided in the Bill. If several hundred million pounds' worth of railway subsidy were given to LRT and later had to be found by the Government, we do not intend that the extra money should be financed in the same two-thirds/one third proportion. That would greatly increase the burden on the ratepayer because at present the whole amount is paid by the taxpayer. One would have to take a judgment about whether some and, if so how much, should fall on the ratepayer." — [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 March 1984; c. 908.]
Whether we should leave such a judgment to the Secretary of State is a matter for debate between both sides of the House.
The Secretary of State has tried to draw the analogy between the proposed payments and section 20 grants in other metropolitan county areas. There is an important difference, as I am sure the Minister is aware. Perhaps I should not say this as it may prejudice her future promotion prospects, but she always appears to take a more detailed interest in these matters than does the Secretary of State.
I think that the Minister will concede that section 20 grants are either clearly entered into or not, as the case may be, by elected local authorities. There is a great difference between the proposals that we are discussing and the purposes behind the new clause, and what takes place in metropolitan county areas as a result of agreements between elected local authorities and those charged with managing and operating the British railway system.
One of the reasons behind the new clause is that once again the Government in part II of the Bill appear to be dedicated to the principle of double taxation of Londoners without even single representation, which is a slight variation of the old cliché. The suspicion must be that the Government and LRT together will be understandably fearful about the consequences of imposing a large new levy on London's rate-payers. Therefore, they will attempt to curtail investment in rail services. We believe that Londoners will inevitably be paying more towards transport services in London but that rail services supported directly by the public service obligation will decline.
Having expressed my sorrow at the absence of the Secretary of State—I know it is normally regarded as only a woman's prerogative to change her mind, but perhaps I may change mine——

Mrs. Chalker: Tell me about it.

Mr. Snape: I would not dream of trying to tell the Minister of State anything. I have been trying to do so in Committee for what seems like a lifetime with a singular lack of success. I shall attempt to teach her, as gently as I always do, the error of her ways and of the Government's ways in regard to part II of the Bill.
My expression of gratitude, if that is the right term, for the absence of the Secretary of State is made simply because I want to discuss the vexed question of integration which, during the Committee deliberations, was guaranteed to send him into what passes as a fury for the Secretary of State. Most of my hon. Friends would perhaps regard it as a mild fit or a foot-stamping effort, but I suppose that it passes as a fury in the sort of circles in which the Secretary of State moves.
Our concern in Committee, which has led to us tabling the new clause, was to assist the further integration of the services to which I have referred. We regard it as nonsensical to set up under the Bill a non-elected organisation to run London's transport and then to leave matters as they are for the services of British Rail. That is unlikely to be conducive to the integration of passenger transport services within the Greater London area and is likely for the financial reasons that I outlined earlier to be counterproductive.
However, it seems strange that the avowed purpose of part II of the Bill is to bring about any integration of passenger services when in every other part of the Bill it seems to be the Government's intention to allow passenger services to disintegrate in the Greater London area. As the House will be aware, the tendency is to separate bus services from underground services and also to privatise some of the services, but only the profitable ones.
The Secretary of State seems to be unsure about why the powers in part II that we are seeking to amend are necessary at all. Indeed, during the deliberations in Committee he said:
I do not believe that we need these powers and I hope that they will not have to be brought into effect." — [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 March 1984; c. 937.]
That is indeed a confession from the Secretary of State who, at least theoretically, is responsible for the promotion of legislation on behalf of his Department. For him to say that these powers are not likely to be needed is unusual even by his somewhat elastic political standards.
The new clause should appeal to the House because it is designed to save Londoners a further financial burden. There is obviously confusion in the mind of the Government about the burden that will fall on ratepayers, and I hope that the Minister of State will provide satisfactory answers to the questions that I have asked on this issue. Our view is that this part of the Bill will add to the already frightening list of additional rates that Londoners will have to pay to meet the ideological prejudices of the Government. The Conservatives are good at accusing the GLC and Labour Members of promoting our ideological prejudices, but——

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the London Regional Transport Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed until any hour. —[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Snape: I was referring to the already frightening list of extra rates and charges that Londoners will have to pay. Inevitably, as a result of the Bill, they will have to pay a greater proportion of the running costs of transport in London; they will have to meet, despite what the Minister of State was unwise enough to say in an earlier debate, extra payments for the concessionary fares


scheme; and under this part of the Bill, unless the Government accept our advice, they will have to meet additional payments for British Rail, money which has traditionally come from the taxpayer.
I do not know whether I need declare an interest as a taxpayer and London ratepayer. I am one of those poor people who will have to pay twice for this ideological nonsense to which the Government are dedicated. Indeed, for a Government who oppose the GLC on the basis of high rates and who wish to relieve Londoners of additional financial burdens, we are left wondering how much higher rates will be after this particularly confused part of the Bill becomes law.
The Secretary of State is on record as saying that he will use his powers under part II only if other consultative measures between LRT and BR fail to achieve — I whisper gently the dreaded word — integration. However, when in Committee we debated what was then amendment No. 149, which specified that the integration of the two services should come about within three years of the appointed day, the right hon. Gentleman said:
That does not give us the opportunity to try the liaison operations properly and then to come to an ordered decision".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 March 1984; c. 910.]
There appears to be little in the Bill that is particularly orderly, yet it contains many aspects that will prejudice the work that the GLC has done, especially in recent years, to bring about the sort of transport system that has benefited Londoners and those who use the city's transport system.
In pressing the new clause, I remind the Minister of State of some of the successes that have occurred under the GLC and the desire of the GLC to enhance those successes, for example by spreading the use of the travel card to British Rail services. Does the Minister envisage the cheaper travel schemes that the GLC has introduced — to which the Conservatives take such violent objection — being widened in future years to take in British Rail services? If so, who will take that decision? A legitimate question to the Minister of State, given her passion for talking about money, is how much all this will cost, when and if such a happy position eventually comes about. If part II proves anything, it proves either that the Government willfully wil not understand what they are trying to bring about in passenger services in the greater London area, or do not care about the damage that part II will cause.
The Minister of State waxes indignantly, as she does from time to time, when we gently chide her about the likely effect of the Bill on Londoners. If I am wrong about the likely effect of the Bill, no doubt, with that carefully prepared brief, she will be able to tell me so in due course. I hope that she will concede that the improvements—the integration of services and the fairly large programme of refurbishment of stations, and further subsidy of BR services—that have taken place under the GLC are not at risk as a result of the acceptance of part II of the Bill and the rejection of new clause 3. If she can do that, to put it mildly, we will be pleasantly surprised. We do not believe, as the only move towards integration written into this part of the Bill is for British Rail to consult London Regional Transport on fares, that that is sufficient. I ask the Minister whether she would agree that the

consultations between LRT and BR on fares reflect the kind of genuine integration that both sides of the House would surely wish to see in London Transport.
If the Minister of State cannot bring herself to accept the new clause, will she say how much its rejection will cost London's ratepayers, and how the bill for British Rail services in London is to be met in future? Is the money to be paid to LRT and then passed on to BR, or will it be paid to BR direct? If it is to be paid to BR direct, particularly in respect of the increased services, will it be deducted from BR's global subsidy in some other way?
I hope that the Minister of State can bring herself to look kindly upon the new clause. The purpose of the clause is to assist the integration of BR services with those of LRT, an integration that the GLC has strived manfully—"personfully" may be more appropriate these days—to achieve, and which is directly prejudiced by the proposals in this biased Bill.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall try to answer the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) in an acceptable way, but I must tell him that I cannot accept his new clause. Although he may banter and flutter his eyelashes through his new spectacles, he cannot persuade me that he has made a case for saying that the Bill will increase costs to London ratepayers, because he knows from our discussions in Committee and at other times that it is in order to bring about some sensible use of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money that we are striving to achieve better integration between transport in London now provided by the London Transport Executive, under the direction of the GLC, and British Rail's London and south-east region, which is responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The new clause would prevent ratepayers from contributing towards the cost of British Rail services without the boroughs' consent, and amendment No. 53 would remove from part II the reserve powers to extend the functions of LRT in relation to British Rail services in the London regional rail passenger network. There is some similarity with the debate that we had in Committee on amendment No. 153, but I accept that the hon. Gentleman is worried that integration will fall harder upon London ratepayers in future than it does under the separate designation of public money, through the Secretary of State to British Rail, and through the GLC to London Transport.
As the Government believe that we can achieve integration between LRT and British Rail's London and south-east region, we do not believe that the powers in part II will be heeded. However, we have always said in Committee and in previous debates on the Floor of the House that if part II should come into effect, and enshrine in legislation the combined operation of LRT and British Rail's London and south-east region, it should do so only so that the ratepayers' contributions as a combined subsidy to British Rail and LRT are lower than the contributions which we envisage might be necessary in the early years of LRT — that is, a maximum of the two thirds ratepayers' contribution and one third taxpayers' contribution.
If we consider the new clause rather than some of the words used by the hon. Gentleman in moving it, we see that he is seeking to separate by statute the grant-aiding of bus and underground services from British Rail services. Therefore, if part II were introduced, there would no


longer be the flexibility that we desire LRT to have in examining the rail, bus and underground networks together. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to impose financial rigidity between the British Rail services for which LRT would be responsible under part II and the bus and underground services. That cannot be his intention, and if I did not already know that he intended to vote on the new clause, I should have said that it was a probing one. However, he seems to have persuaded himself that the ratepayers' contribution will suddenly change significantly.
I can see no reason why the total ratepayers' contributions should suddenly change significantly simply because part II has been brought into operation. It would be sensible from the time that part II was introduced to express the levy slightly differently, because it would be a smaller proportion of the increased grants to LRT—the existing total grant plus the grant to British Rail for London and the south-east.
To give the hon. Gentleman an example, if when part II was introduced the ratepayers' levy for LRT was 60 per cent.—I take that figure for purely illustrative reasons—the total grant would decrease to a figure of 60 minus Y per cent., Y being a function of the grant being paid for British Rail's London and south-east region. In other words, the 60 minus Y per cent. would become, in effect, a new maximum percentage. Of course, that reduction would occur because virtually all the support to the board's London and south-east services now comes from central rather than local government and there is no reason why the amount of the ratepayers' contribution should suddenly become very different because part II of the Bill was brought into operation.
10.15 pm
I have told the hon. Gentleman on many occasions that I see no reason why it should have to happen. In Committee we explained at some length some of the proposals and ideas for bringing about a far closer liaison than has been possible to date between British Rail London and south-east region and London Transport Executive. Should it become necessary, however, it certainly does not mean that the ratepayer contribution would increase per se, because the PSO for London and south-east BR would still be available to London and south-east BR and be paid through LRT to them. What he is seeking, therefore, in his new clause and consequent amendment No. 53 is to separate, in a way which would prevent the very flexibility that he has been praising, the sums of money going to the different aspects of transport provision in London.
While he may have some fun at my expense or that of other people about the whole issue of integration, I will say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that there is no reason why any more resources should come from the ratepayer than at present. He knows that it is our avowed intention to reduce the amount of resources coming from the ratepayer.
The hon. Gentleman is also being unrealistic in terms of the financing element when he talks about involving the boroughs. He has been aware, I think, from our debates that I have sought wherever possible to include consultation with the boroughs and with other interested parties in the enactment of the LRT legislation. I really cannot see, however, how one would determine the agreement of the boroughs and their ratepayers because the hon. Gentleman does not say whether he requires

unanimity or whether a single borough or even a group of ratepayers could have an effective veto. In other words, I do not think that, when it comes down to it, the practicalities of the new clause are practicable for the working of London Transport.

Mr. Snape: Perhaps I could answer the Minister. Although she does it charmingly, she should stop presenting assertions as facts. It has long been the view of those on the Opposition Benches, as it was their view in Committee, that it is the Government's duty and obligation to consult elected local authorities in the manner that we have outlined in the new clause. I see no insuperable objection to the consultation outlined in new clause 11. If there is some insuperable objection, perhaps the Minister would detail it rather than, no matter how gently, implying it.

Mrs. Chalker: ' The hon. Gentleman misunderstands —I suspect, somewhat purposely. There is no way in which deciding the exact monetary amounts can be part of the final decision-taking of consultation. It is perfectly true that in the preparation of plans, whether by London Regional Transport putting forward its needs for the following year or in the LRT annual plan, which we will come to on a new clause tomorrow, or in the strategic statement, which is already in the Bill—in both cases, before one ever arrives at the total amount of moneys to be apportioned from the National Exchequer and to be precepted through the rates, there will be consultation. It is crucial that final decisions are taken quickly—as they are at present, following consultations with British Rail and, I imagine, by the GLC with LT —and are not subject to the veto of any borough or group of persons.
When considering new clause 11, the hon. Gentleman must think about one of its effects. If we were to decide that LRT could make better use of some BR lines because it could run commuter services which were more consistent and fitted in better with the LTR network than with BR, in an area composed predominantly of commuter traffic, I do not necessarily believe that it would be fair to load the total effect and cost of those rail lines on London's ratepayers. The rigidity in new clause 11 would have that effect. The cost of the maintenance of those rail lines would fall upon LRT even if they were used for long-distance travel outside the London and south-east region.
From the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made and from my reading of new clause 11 and amendment No. 53, I do not see why he needs the terms of the amendment included in the Bill. I am confident that BR and LRT, from their expression of how they wish to work and provide services for the Londoner, will be able to work together.
In Committee we told the hon. Gentleman about the high-level non-statutory liaison arrangements which would be overseen by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and, in his absence, by me. The Bill brings together LRT and BR services in the area within the same policy and financial framework. We are backing that with the statutory powers and duties provided in clauses 2 and 3. I do not see, therefore, that we shall need to have recourse to part II. Should it be needed to achieve integration, there is no way in which the hon. Gentleman's proposals would make that any easier. In fact, it would make it harder. I do not wish to put any impediment in the way of bringing together BR London and south-east region and the services which will be operated by LRT in the future.
The hon. Gentleman said a few other things which I should perhaps answer. He spoke about the travel card and asked whether it would continue and widen. I cannot give undertakings as to exactly what will happen. I think that the integral advantages—if I may use that adjective—of having a ticket which takes one from the point of departure to the point of destination, through a number of different services, is well known in other countries and is beginning to be seen here. LT's desire to achieve that and BR's readiness to look at future possibilities is something that I would wish to encourage and which I know will be one of the objectives set by my right hon. Friend for LRT in its early days.
In taking the decisions, LRT and BR will have their own external financing limits. They are in charge of their own destiny when making economic decisions. I would regret to see on the statute book a power to dictate to able

managers of public concerns how they should take those decisions. If one does not leave them free to take such decisions, one will never attract into the public transport service people of the right calibre to give the best service to the travelling public. I have seen that happening in other countries where, because a relatively unfettered responsibility is exercised by the chairmen of public concerns within the objectives set by the Governments of those countries, they have been able to provide a far better service for the travellers than, regrettably, we have been able to achieve so far in this country.
We are seeking to put those things right with the Bill. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will see that the rigidity that is introduced by the new clause and the amendment with regard to British Rail and LRT is to no good purpose, and could hinder the integration to which I know the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East is wedded.

Mr. Spearing: Although I know that theoretically every Member of Parliament should be aware of what happens in a Standing Committee on a Bill, particularly those who venture into debates on Report, I confess that I have not waded through all the reports of the Committee debates. However, had I done so, I am not convinced that I would be much the wiser.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend would be.

Mr. Spearing: A careful filler would be necessary.
I should like to contribute to this debate on the London rail network as a Londoner who has taken some interest in London's railways over several years. I have considered them not from the point of view of the man on the Clapham omnibus, but from the point of view of the man on the Newham district line railway.
I am confused about the purposes of clauses 35, 36 and 37, which the Minister is keen to retain. When the hon. Lady replies to the debate, I hope that she will remove some of the misapprehensions. I hope that she will do so in language that Londoners will be able to understand if they happen to read Hansard or if her words happen to go out on the ether. I believe that there is an obligation on parliamentarians to speak, when possible, in language that their constituents can understand. I fear that, because of the complexity of the legislation, that has not been a marked feature of the debate so far.
I am confused about clauses 35, 36 and 37, because their language is extremely convoluted. I am not sure of their purpose. Perhaps the Minister, who wishes to retain them, will say a few words on those clauses in part II. I heartily endorse the hon. Lady's desire for integration. I noted her endorsement of that objective in the Bill. However, one does not achieve integration through long legalistic phrases in Bills. It can sometimes be done in other ways.
My first question about London rail network finance is: can we assume that the grants that come to the London rail network to be—that does not necessarily mean the grant to the London and south-east rail network, as they are not the same thing—will be paid not to British Rail but to LRT? The important point is whether that will be supplemented by a precept on the London boroughs within the GLC and then paid to British Rail.
If that is the case, let the Minister say so. I take it that that is the purpose of this part of the Bill, but let us get it clear. If it is not, I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us what will happen. The House is entitled to know. This is the last time that we can get the financial structure of these important railways in London sorted out.
10.30 pm
I have referred to the Minister's view on integration, and I do not believe that this is the best way to get it. The hon. Lady may not know that between 1933 and 1948 there was integration, even with the railway companies in private hands, in the London Transport area. Indeed, it was not confined to the railways. All the takings—trams, buses, trolley buses, underground railways and the main line suburban services—were put into a pool and then, on an agreed formula, the money was shared out among the operators. That system worked very well. I am not saying that it is the ideal system, but I suggest to the hon. Lady that there are all sorts of ways of integrating.

Alas, despite her protestations, I cannot see a great deal of integration in the Bill, because is is not necessary to do it by legislation.
Some very good things were done before the war. The 1935 to 1939 new works programme produced considerable integration among the lines of the Great Western railway, the Metropolitan and former North Eastern railway and, particularly, the former Great Eastern lines in the Stratford and West Ham areas of London. That did not require legislation in quite the same form as we have it before us tonight. So the fact that the hon. Lady makes protestations about integration does not mean that the law is the only way in which it can be achieved.
At the same time, there have been some bad bloomers by British Rail. The continuing lack of a line between Willesden and Clapham junction is a major omission. Indeed, half that line was electrified before the war, but it is not electrified at all now. There have been some omissions from the present system. I am not saying that it is perfect, but we do not need legislation to put that right. The blocking up of the Snow Hill link between the widened lines of Kings Cross and Blackfriars was an almost criminal act permitted by the Government— it may have been my own; I make no party point here. They allowed British Rail to do that. The way in which the various regions of British Rail and London Transport were scrabbling after fares, without having a policy of coordination, was also a great feature of the post-war lack of integration of London railways.
I cannot see how clauses 35, 36 and 37 will remedy the ills which I have identified. Indeed, from what we hear, disintegration may continue apace. During the election campaign I was at a meeting right next door to the London, Tilbury and Southend railway and, while the trains were roaring past, I pointed out to the people at the meeting that if the Conservatives got back into power they might well sell off this railway from British Rail and put it into private hands. I am not saying that will happen, but the hon. Lady cannot deny that there have been bids for what is seen to be a profitable part of the British Rail network.

Mrs. Chalker: I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the London, Fenchurch street, Tilbury and Shoeburyness line is much in need of improvement, for the benefit of travellers on it, and that almost any improvement would be better than what some commuters have to suffer when coming up to London on that line?

Mr. Spearing: I do not disagree with the point that the Minister has made, that it could well do with some improvements. Of course, the stock on that line (was publicly owned and publicly invested. The old London North Western, the old Midland and the old LMS did not do very well by it, but just to say that there could be improvements on any commuter line, and therefore privatisation is justified, that is stretching it somewhat. That was the implication of the Minister's remarks, even if she did not say it. She did not deny that this was a possibility when she intervened. I welcome interventions from the hon. Lady, and if she wishes to intervene again I shall be very pleased to give way, but that seems to be a complete non sequitur and confirms my charge of disintegration.
Another example bandied around in the technical journals is the Victoria-Gatwick line. When I asked questions about that in the last Parliament, the people in


Marsham street immediately clammed up. We now read in the technical journals that new coaches are being put on the route, with trains running every 15 minutes during the day and every hour throughout the night. That is fine, but I hope that it does not mean that that line, too, is a candidate for privatisation. It is clearly a cream route that could provide a lot of lolly for anyone given the concession, just like the ice cream man on the sea front.

Mr. Snape: Even if it is not a candidate for privatisation, does my hon. Friend agree that that line provides a good excuse for saying that the reduction of southern region services is only 2 per cent.? That is the kind of sleight-of-hand that makes us distrust anything that the Government tell us.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is quite right. Some of the aspirations mouthed by the Minister are quite reasonable, but looking at the straws in the wind we see something very different. I fear that while the Bill publicly calls for integration and co-operation, its real purpose is to allow profitable routes which should contribute to the public purse and to those routes which are unlikely to pay so well or at all, to be hived off arbitrarily to operators who will then make a profit out of the support provided for other routes by the taxpayer and especially the ratepayer. We shall be looking very closely indeed at the kind of operations that London Regional Transport permits in the way of privatisation.
As I said on Second Reading and in relation to the money resolution, the Bill is a licence for the Secretary of State and London Regional Transport to allocate profit-making routes to individual persons or companies at the expense of public money provided to prop up the unprofitable routes. For all the Minister's protestations about integration, I very much fear that that is the real purpose of the Bill.
My next question relates to the phenomenon mentioned in clause 35 — the London regional rail passenger network, not an acronym, but certainly another statutory phrase that we shall have to learn to live with in this legislative morass. Clause 35 defines the railway lines that will constitute that network as
such railway passenger services as may be determined from time to time by the Secretary of State, after consultation with London Regional Transport and the Railways Board.
I hope that the Minister will tell us more about that, as it will be entirely at the behest of the Secretary of State. He may have to consult other bodies, but he will designate what the network will be. I suspect that it will not be the existing British Rail London suburban region, still less all the routes of the British Rail London and south east region to which the Minister referred—an artificial creation to some extent, although I do not dissent from the concept.
Grave complications could arise, as it is clear that the London Regional Transport area may be different from the London regional rail passenger network. The Secretary of State could easily designate commuter lines going out well beyond not just the GLC area but even the LRT area, whatever that turns out to be.
Many places are served by fast and quite comfortable trains these days, and people travel to London daily from quite distant places. The London to Brighton run is not the only one. There has been the electrification of the Bedford line and the Lea Valley line, and there is the great northern

electrified line to Royston. There could be a number of candidates from the London regional rail passenger network, including even Shoeburyness, Tunbridge Wells or Hastings, or the newly electrified line in that direction.
How far will this be carried? If those lines need some support, I presume that London Regional Transport will be able to provide it. If London Regional Transport provides support, some of the money will come from the ratepayers in London—from the precept—and that could presumably mean that ratepayers in the GLC area will be supporting lines that go well outside the GLC area into the lusher commuter areas, some of which I have mentioned.
That would be totally unjust, particularly with rate-capping and GREAs and all the rest of it, but it is a distinct possibility under the Bill. The Minister may well justify it by saying that London is not just the GLC area and that people come in from far afield to go shopping, or to visit Whitehall, or even go to Marsham street, and that we must look at the picture as a whole. I do not deny that, but it would be wrong to use London ratepayers' money to assist such lines.

Mrs. Chalker: indicated dissent.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister indicates that that is not so. Will she undertake that there will be legislation to prevent it? Ministers at the Department of Transport may not always have the knowledge, wisdom and understanding of the present incumbents. If there is a legislative possibility that that flow of money could take place, the Bill is very much wanting and some adjustments are necessary.
The Bill is being introduced under a cloak of integration and improvement. However, just as the Minister's logic was somewhat adrift when she kindly intervened to suggest to me certain points about the London to Tilbury line, so the logic of the Bill may also be adrift. It is likely to provide profits by licence to certain private operators at the public expense, and it will become an administrative and legislative nightmare.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Although, in these London debates, we welcome visiting stars to the Front Benches — the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and my hon. Friend the Minister of State—the rest of us always boil down to the cosy family of London Members. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) spoke with his usual mixture of good sense and craziness. If the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) should be lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, hon. Members on both sides look forward to hearing him. In the short time that he has been in the House, he has become one of our institutions. He is the Edna Everage of his part of the world and delights all who listen to him, both in the Chamber and upstairs.
I am allowing a frivolous note to creep into my normally sombre tones because we are all standing language upside down. I shall take the argument in a simple form as it is a simple argument. The hon. Member for Newham, South is absolutely right to say that integration between London Transport and British Rail is not produced by legislation. If we tried to legislate we should screw it up. As Dr. Tony Ridley, the managing director of London Transport Rail, with whom I have discussed the matter, would say if he were here, if we try to create a mechanical structure of management by legislation, it is almost impossible to get it right. It is much


simpler to do what the Government are doing—letting the two move closer together. Perhaps in five or six years' time a formula which lends itself to legislation will have been established, but we should be quite wrong to legislate tonight.
10.45 pm
At the other end of the scale is what happened to British Rail under the regime that is now going through its death throes. Many of us tried to see "Fares Fair" objectively with minds free from cant. It was amateurishly executed but based on the perfectly sound theory that it is possible to increase the size of the market by lowering prices. One of the amateurish elements of that programme, which spoiled its execution, was that there was no consultation between London Transport and BR, with the result that BR passengers switched like lightning to the suddenly much cheaper London Transport and the Secretary of State had to pick up a bill for £100 million on lost revenues to BR. Under the fairly loose and informal arrangement proposed by the Bill, that will not happen. We shall begin to get some of the benefits that we have lacked in the past few years and shall not, by a lack of communication, first damage LT and then BR but get closer without the distortion of legislation based on a lack of experience.
Labour spokesmen keep talking about the enormous burdens that will be put on ratepayers. The truth, if I understand the emanations from the powder room at county hall, is that the new part-time directors of LT have been seized with furious resentment——

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is that a sexist or a military remark?

Mr. Stevens: That is an interesting question. Is it sexist to say "powder room"? I was nearly stopped from speaking at York university a coupe of weeks ago because they said that I was a racist fascist. If I am either of those things I am also the king of Japan.
Going back to the powder room, or the rest closet, the rumours are that, far from demands for subsidies increasing — to the expense of the ratepayer or the taxpayer—what enraged Mr. Livingstone's six bright young people who are helping out temporarily was that the corporate plan for LT appears to have envisaged an increase in efficiency, which will make subsidy less and less necessary. Public help will he required for long-term investment, but overall we anticipate that the need for subsidy may not form quite the mill-stone around our neck that it does now.
The new clause and the amendment are based on false assumptions — that we need legalistically to impose integration on London Transport and British Rail before they are ready for it, and that the need for management subsidy will, with greater efficiency, increase rather than decrease. We would be wrong to accept the new clause, and I happily support the Government.

Mr. Snape: I congratulate the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) on making a most interesting speech. I am sorry that, during our many weeks of deliberation in Standing Committee, he did not entertain us in the same way. I do not know whether this maxim applies to politicians as well as it does to journalists, but the hon. Gentleman during his speech never let the facts spoil a good story. Although interesting, the hon. Gentleman's speech about the lack of consultation

between British Rail and the GLC at the same time of the "Fares Fair" scheme was wrong: the GLC offered some subsidy to the British Railways Board so that there could be a move towards the equalisation of fares, following the experimental period of fare reductions. The GLC was told by the Government, whom I am sure the hon. Gentleman is happy to support, that the funds provided by the GLC would be removed from the public service obligation and BR would not be any better off. Although the hon. Gentleman entertained us very well, I regretfully tell him that he should have a glimpse of the facts before expounding his version.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) summed up the debate. He put a straight question to the Minister: why are clauses 35, 36 and 37 in the Bill? We still do not know, because the Secretary of State does not know—not that he normally knows much. He has gone on record as saying that he does not think it is necessary that those clauses should be initiated. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, I feel that we should ask why, if it is unnecessary to initiate those clauses, put them in the Bill? As the Government are fond of telling us, they are responsible for parliamentary time, and, if it becomes necessary, the proposals contained in the clauses could be covered in a separate Bill. The clauses to which my hon. Friend rightly objected, are not so much the cloak of integration, but figments of the imagination of the Secretary of State. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee know how fertile that imagination is.
The Minister, in replying earlier, used all the usual clichés, which she does so elegantly. She talked about the sensible use of public resources. No hon. Member—not even I, despite the prejudiced view of the hon. Member for Fulham — could take exception to such anodyne sentiments. I confess that the Minister lost me when speaking about the difficulty of the joint use of railway lines. I presume that she was referring to the acceptance of the new clause.
The hon. Lady will be as aware as I am that lines are jointly used by trains subsidised by PSO, by other trains subsidised directly under section 20 through metropolitan county councils and by profit-making—I hope—intercity trains operated by the British Railways Board. I cannot see any difficulty about the joint use of railway lines in those cases. There is no great difficulty about the joint use of railway lines for London if the new clause is accepted.
The hon. Lady trotted out the story that we heard so often in Committee—that it is not the Government's wish to be directly involved in these matters; that it is purely a matter for "professional management". We heard those two words thrown at us time after time. Again, I must gently remind her that if she looks at railway lines in the remainder of the country, including her constituency, she might find that had it not been for the creation—I acknowledge by a Conservative Government —of the Merseyside county council, those professional managers to whom she refers so respectfully would have been delighted to close down the railway system in and around Merseyside many years ago.
I want to be fair, but I must remind the hon. Lady that politicians of all political hues—I shall even drag in the party of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—have consciously taken the decision—opposed by the professional management that the


Government admire so much—on Merseyside, in and around Birmingham and in London that railway services run and operated by British Rail are worthy of support by the ratepayers because of the service provided.
The hon. Lady talks about management function in the operation of transport in the London area. As she knows full well, London Regional Transport will have the sort of management function and management freedom that she has in her Department. London Regional Transport will have the same management function and management freedom as her whole Department has vis-a-vis the Treasury. She knows, as does the House, that the purpose of the Bill—we tabled the new clause to contradict that—is truly financial.

Mrs. Chalker: No.

Mr. Snape: Yes it is. The hon. Lady knows that. It is an attempt to ensure that less money is spent on transport in London. The hon. Lady, with her usual consistency, has throughout our debates declined to answer detailed questions on future financing and the provision of services.

Mr. Martin Stevens: rose——

Mr. Snape: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stevens: It is hardly worth the hon. Gentleman sitting down.
The hon. Gentleman told us earlier that the main object of the Bill was to sell off the system to those ice-cream selling chaps. He cannot have it both ways. If he does not like the idea of greater efficiency, let him stick to the reasons that he has given.

Mr. Snape: If I were to be as unkind as the hon. Gentleman, I might say that it was hardly worth his while standing up. He should listen before he intervenes. The extremely witty reference to ice-cream was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. Much as I should like to have my hon. Friend's speeches attributed to me, I dare say he would object if they were.
If the hon. Member for Fulham reads the Bill, he will see that the purpose is twofold: first, it is to reduce the amount of money spent on the provision of public transport in London, and, secondly, to flog off the profitable parts wherever they can be flogged off and to anyone who is unwise enough to buy them.
I know that the Minister of State does not wish to reply. Given the content of her earlier remarks, I can well understand why. I hope that my hon. Friends will support me by voting for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Spearing (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister of the Crown, when resisting an amendment, not to reply to questions put by hon. Members when the debate is not subject to guillotine or any time limit enforced by an order of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Nothing has been out of order. It is in order for the Minister to make her own judgment.

The House having divided: Ayes 164, Noes 257

Division No. 229]
[11 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Heffer, Eric S.


Alton, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Anderson, Donald
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Ashton, Joe
Howells, Geraint


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hoyle, Douglas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beith, A. J.
Janner, Hon Greville


Bell, Stuart
John, Brynmor


Benn, Tony
Johnston, Russell


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kennedy, Charles


Blair, Anthony
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Lambie. David


Boyes, Roland
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bruce, Malcolm
Loyden, Edward


Caborn, Richard
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell, Ian
McKelvey, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McTaggart, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McWilliam, John


Cartwright, John
Madden, Max


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clarke, Thomas
Maxton, John


Clay, Robert
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Meacher, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Meadowcroft, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Michie, William


Conlan, Bernard
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mitchell, Austin ('t Grimsby)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Craigen, J. M.
O'Brien, William


Crowther, Stan
O'Neill, Martin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Parry, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Patchett, Terry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Pendry, Tom


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Penhaligon, David


Deakins, Eric
Pike, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dobson, Frank
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Randall, Stuart


Dubs, Alfred
Redmond, M.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Eadie, Alex
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Eastham, Ken
Robertson, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Ewing, Harry
Rogers, Allan


Fatchett, Derek
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Faulds, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fisher, Mark
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Flannery, Martin
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Snape, Peter


Freud, Clement
Spearing, Nigel


George, Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Stott, Roger


Gould, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Straw, Jack


Hardy, Peter
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Tinn, James


Haynes, Frank
Torney, Tom






Wainwright, R.
Winnick, David


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert



Welsh, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


White, James
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Don Dixon.


Williams, Rt Hon A.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Aitken, Jonathan
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Fallon, Michael


Amess, David
Farr, John


Ancram, Michael
Favell, Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ashby, David
Fletcher, Alexander


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fox, Marcus


Baldry, Anthony
Franks, Cecil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Beggs, Roy
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bellingham, Henry
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, William
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Berry, Sir Anthony
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruinvels, Peter
Harris, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harvey, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayes, J.


Butterfill, John
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Carttiss, Michael
Henderson, Barry


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hickmet, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hill, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hirst, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hooson, Tom


Coombs, Simon
Hordern, Peter


Cope, John
Howard, Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Crouch, David
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, David (Wirral)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Durant, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Dykes, Hugh
Jackson, Robert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
Jessel, Toby


Evennett, David
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey





Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Shersby, Michael


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Silvester, Fred


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Skeet, T. H. H.


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Speed, Keith


King, Rt Hon Tom
Speller, Tony


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Spencer, Derek


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Squire, Robin


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Steen, Anthony


Lester, Jim
Stern, Michael


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stokes, John


Maginnis, Ken
Stradling Thomas, J.


Major, John
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Terlezki, Stefan


Mellor, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Trotter, Neville


Monro, Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Moynihan, Hon C.
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mudd, David
Viggers, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Waddington, David


Newton, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, J.
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Cranley
Walden, George


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wall, Sir Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Waller, Gary


Pollock, Alexander
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Watson, John


Powley, John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Renton, Tim
Wheeler, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitfield, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wolfson, Mark


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Wood, Timothy


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Woodcock, Michael


Rowe, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ryder, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sackville, Hon Thomas



Sayeed, Jonathan
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

NEW WRIT

For Cynon Valley, in the room of Joan Lyonel Evans, Esq., deceased—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]

European Assembly Constituencies (England)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move,
That the draft European Assembly Constituencies (England) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.
The Boundary Commission for England submitted its final recommendations for new European Parliament constituencies on 22 March and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State proposes that those recommendations be implemented without modifications. Article 2 of the order substitutes the constituencies described in the schedule for the existing European constituencies in England. If both Houses approve the draft order, it will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council to be made. Article 1(2) provides that the order comes into operation immediately it is made, but does not affect the present constituencies until the next general election of European Parliament representatives on 14 June.
This review has taken only 11 months to complete, which is a remarkable achievement. In that time the commission has had to consider 900 written representations, hold nine local inquiries and publish revised recommendations for 16 constituencies. Some hon. Members may recall that the commission was at first extremely doubtful whether it could complete the review in time for its proposals to be implemented at this year's elections because of the need to comply with these important but time-consuming procedures. The fact that the commission has nevertheless achieved its goal is entirely due to the hard work and dedication of the deputy chairman, Mr. Justice Walton, his fellow members, and their small staff, who also serve the Welsh commission. I am sure that the House will wish me to express our thanks to them, and to Mr. Speaker, as ex-officio chairman, for ensuring that the review was conducted as meticulously and expeditiously as possible.
My right hon. and learned Friend has received only 12 representations about six of the proposed 66 constituencies. This suggests that the final recommendations are acceptable to the vast majority of electors. Those representations have been carefully considered, but my right hon. and learned Friend has decided not to modify the commission's recommendations because the objections raised are similar to others considered and rejected by the commission during the review.
The final recommendations would leave the present Hereford and Worcester, London East and London North East constituencies unchanged and make a minor boundary alteration, involving no electors, to the Cornwall and Plymouth, and Devon constituencies. The remaining 61 constituencies would all be altered to varying degrees, although many of them would retain a substantial part of their present area and electorate.
Those changes have had to be made because of changes in the electorates of the present constituencies and alterations to the boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies between 1977 and 1983. Part H of schedule 2 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 provides that no parliamentary constituency shall be divided between European constituencies and that each European

constituency shall have an electorate as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practicable, having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations.
The electoral quota for England in this review was 539,155. At the start of the review the electorates of the present European constituencies ranged from 456,965 in Liverpool, which is 15·2 per cent. below that quota, to 622,241 in Hampshire, West, which is 15·4 per cent. above the quota. The need to reduce that disparity and to align the existing boundaries with those of the new parliamentary constituencies, 119 of which were divided between European constituencies, therefore made substantial changes inevitable in some parts of the country.
However, the commission has attempted to minimise the effects of its proposals on local government areas and existing constituencies as much as possible, although it is not statutorily required to take account of county and London borough boundaries or the inconveniences attendant on any alternations, as it was during its review of parliamentary constituencies, which have wide and different statutory criteria.

Mr. Robert Jackson: While congratulating the Boundary Commission on its work, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind for future reference, especially with regard to what he said about local authority boundaries, the fact that sometimes the nomenclature that the commission chooses is clumsy? For example, the European constituency that contains Wantage and Newbury — my constituency of Wantage being in Oxfordshire and Newbury being in Berkshire—has been called Wiltshire. The commission refused to accept any suggestion for a different name. The good people of Wantage believe that that must have been done in Brussels rather than by a British Boundary Commission.

Mr. Mellor: Yes, it sounds as though that might be so.
The paramount consideration before the Boundary Commission is simply parity of electorates, but the commission has also been able to increase the number of counties, districts and London boroughs which are undivided between constituencies. At present, 37 counties and London boroughs are undivided. Under the commission's proposals, 46 counties and London boroughs — including East Sussex, Norfolk and West Sussex, which will form separate constituencies—are undivided. Essex and Kent will each contain two whole constituencies, while the number of districts not divided between constituencies will rise from 262 to 284 if the commission's recommendations are implemented in full.
However, the final test is whether the commission has achieved a better standard of parity than it did in 1978. There is no doubt that it has. The electorates of the proposed constituencies range from 7·4 per cent. below the electoral quota in Cheshire East to 6·4 per cent. above in Essex North East, compared with a range of 9·7 per cent. below the 1977 electoral quota of 516,436, to 10·4 per cent. above in 1978. I understand that some people will naturally be disappointed that the commission rejected their own suggestions for new boundaries or names in their locality, but my right hon. and learned Friend and I consider that it has done a very good job in extremely difficult circumstances.
The way is now open for the elections on 14 June to be held on up-to-date boundaries. Not only is that right on grounds of principle, but it is vital that the political parties


should know what the new constituency boundaries are, so that they can begin selecting their candidates. On that basis, I commend these recommendations to the House so that the uncertainty which has been a feature of the past year can be quickly ended.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: The first thing that one ought to say about this order and the boundaries that it implements is that they are extremely late in the day in that the the elections to which they apply take place in less than two months' time. Nevertheless, we on the Opposition Benches give them a belated welcome. As the Minister has just said, there was considerable doubt and uncertainty at one time as to whether these boundaries would be implemented in time for the 1984 elections. Not so long ago, on 25 April 1983, the previous Home Secretary, now Lord Whitelaw, in a written answer, said in quite emphatic terms:
The commission sees no prospect of completing its review in time for its recommendations to be implemented at the 1984 elections."—[Official Report, 25 April 1983; Vol. 41, c. 212.]
The same kind of doubt was expressed by the Under-Secretary of State when we debated the European Assembly election regulations on 26 January this year.
This uncertainty as to whether the elections would be fought on the new boundaries has, of course, caused considerable doubt and confusion amongst the political parties and amongst registration officers. It has disrupted the selection of parliamentary candidates and, to a certain extent, disrupted also the formation of the new Euro-constituency parties that need to be established.
I suppose that it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the Tories knew all along that the elections were actually going to be fought on the new boundaries. It is not unremarked that it is their party alone that has not chosen candidates on the basis of existing constituencies but has frozen its candidate selection.

Mr. Jackson: That is not so.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman on the Government Benches may mutter, but it showed a surprising degree of confidence in the outcome of the Boundary Commission's proposals, which was in stark contrast with what Ministers were actually saying about whether those proposals would be implemented in time for the elections.

Mr. Mellor: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but I am bound to say to him—[Interruption.] That is better news than we have had so far in his speech. But perhaps I could say to him that my recollection of what I said on 26 January is that I made it clear that I believed that we would be fighting the elections on the new boundaries. We have been saying that consistently since the late summer and autumn. Of course, what my right hon. and noble Friend said on 25 April was based on the information then coming from the Boundary Commission.
It was able to expedite its work. As the hon. Gentleman understands, we have done our best to acquaint the House, and it is rather unfair of him to say what he has. If he reads the passage of 26 January upon which he relies I think that he will find that I made the position clear.
I suspect that the Labour party's difficulties in selecting candidates derive from the internecine strife of knifing those who are already there.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: There has been no difficulty in selecting candidates. The only difficulty any party has had is in knowing for which constituencies they were being selected.
On 26 January I asked the Minister to remove the doubts and uncertainties and to give a categorical assurance, that we would be fighting the elections on the new boundaries. He was unable to give that assurance. I enumerated the procedures through which the Boundary Commission would have to go if its provisional proposals, which it had not then put before us, were objected to, if there were local inquiries and further representations. The Minister agreed that it was possible for those representations, local inquiries, and all the other matters that had to be gone through, to drag the procedures into June.
It is not unremarkable that there was, until recently, doubt and uncertainty that the Minister could not allay as recently as 26 January. Despite that, the Conservative party had the confidence to believe that it could operate on the basis that it would be fighting the elections on the new boundaries and did not select its candidates on the existing boundaries.
My suspicion is compounded by the fact that the delay has been absurd and unnecessary. In one respect the delay is attributable to the Government. The previous Labour Government tied the redrawing of the new Westminster boundaries into the redrawing of the European constituency boundaries for the Strasbourg election.
When elected in 1979 the Tory Government realised that if they were to fight the election on new redrawn Westminster boundaries, which we all knew would favour the Conservative party, they needed to uncouple the redrawing of the Westminster and the European electoral boundaries. They did that. As a result they had the Westminster boundaries early and were able to fight the 1983 election on the new boundaries which favour the Conservative party. That delayed the redrawing of the European constituency boundaries. That is part of the reason for the delay and it is directly attributable to the Conservative party. There may have been good, objective reasons for uncoupling them, but it was the Government's decision. The result is that we have two months' notice of the boundaries on which we will be fighting the June election.
Leaving aside the suspicions that the Opposition may have about the way in which the procedures have been carried out, it is absurd that we are having to fight an election in two months' time on boundaries that we know about only tonight. We have known the date of the election for some considerable time. It is not like Westminster election, which can come at any time.
It is a simple procedure to redraw the boundaries. The commissioners say that in their report. It is just a matter of fitting the Westminster boundaries into the electoral quota determined for the United Kingdom. It would therefore have been possible to have an early result had the Government provided more resources and manpower to the Boundary Commission instead of depleting it of its resources immediately it had concluded the review of the Westminster boundaries.
We have the boundaries now and I should like to join the Minister in thanking the commissioners for the work they have done and the manner in which they have done it, operating under the great difficulties — as I acknowledge — of the time scale left them by the


Government's actions and policies. But now we have them, even if they have come before us only two months before the election.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has quoted what I said on 26 January, and it might be of some assistance if I read a short passage from my speech to ascertain whether it accords with the argument that he advanced. I said:
We have tried to inform the House, at different stages, of how we see the situation. For some months it has been our view that the Boundary Commission will be able to present to the Home Secretary, in time for him—given normal circumstances — to be able to lay the relevant orders before the House, proposals that would enable the June elections to be held on new boundaries."—[Official Report, 26 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 1160.]

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I do not dissent from that. I read that passage in Hansard and I was in the Chamber when the Minister uttered it. The Minister will acknowledge that that is not a guarantee, and it was a guarantee for which I asked.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The Minister will acknowledge also that on 26 January I stated facts from which he did not dissent. I said that it was theoretically possible and practicable for the Boundary Commission's proposals not to be implemented in time for the statutory procedures to be applied by those wishing to make objections, and the hon. Gentleman conceded that point. Even as late as the debate of 26 January, we did not know for certain—this is factually correct — that we would be fighting the elections on the new boundaries.
We now have the proposals before us—we shall be implementing them tonight—but many of those who would have wished to object to them have been deterred from doing so. They have weighed in the balance their objections against the disruption that they may cause by delaying their implementation.
As the Minister has said, substantial changes have been made in the constituency boundaries. Only three of the 66 Euro-constituencies in England have their boundaries unchanged. Of the remainder, 22 have slightly altered boundaries and 39 have been modified substantially. One of the constituencies which has been modified substantially is in the Northumbria and Tyne and Wear area, where the boundaries have been altered only in the past few months with the final revised proposals submitted by the commissioners. It is absurd and anomalous that a major city such as Newcastle is divided down the middle in a peculiar way between two European constituencies. That seems illogical to me as someone who does not represent a constituency in the north-east and does not come from that area. However, I have read the report and studied the map, and that is the impression with which I am left. It is an alteration that appears to have been highly unacceptable to the local authorities and Members in that region. It is remarkable that the proposals were submitted by a Conservative councillor at the last moment and accepted in toto by the commission.
I shall demonstrate how the concertinaing of the period between announcement tonight of the new boundaries and the elections has prevented the making of some substantial claims. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is in his place

for I have no doubt that he will flesh out what I am about to say. He has written a strong letter to the commissioners dissenting from their proposals. I shall quote from a letter sent to the commissioners by the North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, which was written by Mr. F. S. Watson, the secretary or chief legal adviser. He wrote:
In the Council's opinion, however, the revised proposals produce an entirely unacceptable situation, firstly at Newcastle where the City is now proposed to be further divided between two European constituencies and secondly, so far as the revised proposals affect the two Parliamentary constituencies of Tynemouth and Wallsend where the Commission would appear to have ignored completely the predominant links between these two constituencies and the community of Tyne and Wear.
I shall quote also from a letter from the city of Newcastle upon Tyne to the secretary of the Boundary Commission for England. It is signed by the director of administration, Mr. Brockington. It states:
I am instructed to object in the strongest possible terms to the revised proposals for the Northumbria and Tyne and Wear European Assembly Constituencies.
It is unthinkable that the City of Newcastle upon Tyne, the regional capital of the North East of England, should be divided between two separate constituencies.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will wish to fill out that point in greater detail. There are strong local feelings in some parts of the country that what the commissioners have proposed is unacceptable and, in many ways, indefensible, but because of the restricted time scale, those local authorities, hon. Members like my hon. Friend and other individuals do not feel it incumbent upon them to make the representations that they would have made otherwise. The Government are responsible, and must accept that responsibility.
However, we now have the boundaries at last. The doubt and uncertainty have been removed. I hope that much more interest will be shown by the electorate in the elections in June than was shown in the last elections. I hope that there will be a good turn-out. In any event, the Labour party will fight every seat, and win more than it did last time. We shall ensure that there will be a large, articulate and forceful British Labour presence in Strasbourg and the Council of Europe so that influence can be used to promote the principles of justice and equality and to further peace in Europe.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I should like to refer to the Northumbria and Tyne and Wear problem. In some ways it was impossible for the Boundary Commission to solve the problem. The mere existence of the Tyne Bridge constituency itself ensures that either the city of Newcastle or the town of Gateshead is divided in whatever unit is created. Both the old and new proposals and any rival proposals involve a splitting up of the county of Tyne and Wear. That is inherent in the decision to go for single-member constituencies on a scale that involves the parcelling out of huge county areas such as that. There is no doubt that all the proposals for the Tyne and Wear area have serious geographical disadvantages—both the boundaries that form the previous constituencies and the ones proposed show that.
I have a further complaint about the Tyne and Wear and Northumbria proposals — the use of the term "Northumbria", which is passing increasingly into our nomenclature without adequate justification. The term is


historically used to describe an area that is much larger than the county of Northumberland—indeed, stretching down to the Humber. Its use is normally related to the description of institutions that are larger than Northumberland, such as the area of the police authority. The constituency that is called Northumbria is almost, but not quite, all the historic county of Northumberland. Northumberland would have been the better, and proper, title for it. However, that is a small niggle. There are more important arguments, but they are insoluble. The Boundary Commission could not have pleased everybody in dividing up Tyne and Wear in the way in which the system requires.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the absolute principle on which Conservative Members and the boundary commissioners who support them proceeded is wholly wrong? They divided the city of Newcastle in two to produce one seat that is wholly Labour and another that is marginally anybody's.

Mr. Beith: The other seat is marginally in favour of the alliance. I am delighted about that.
The Boundary Commission came across the problem when the seat of Tyne Bridge was first created. It joined together part of the city of Newcastle with a piece on the other side of the river Tyne. The problems have continued since then. They are inherent in the dividing up of the country into single-member constituencies for the European elections. The order defines single-member constituencies for those elections. Problems of geographical definition are not the only ones that arise from taking that step.
The greatest problem of all that arises from single-member constituencies is that it is impossible to produce a fair representation of the votes cast if the country is divided in that way—in the case of England 66, or 81 in the case of the country as a whole. It is simply not possible for the range of opinion across the country to be fairly represented under such a system.
The Boundary Commission has, by and large, and subject to a few criticisms, done its work well. I do not accept that in making the particular decision on Tyne and Wear it was motivated by support for any particular political party. There is not the slightest evidence of that. I consider that it was going about its job, as it always does, in a wholly impartial manner. I do not always agree with it, but I think that it carries out its work properly and impartially.
But it engaged in a process of producing a system of single-member constituencies which cannot ensure a fair result at the end of the day. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who keeps interrupting from a sedentary position, seemed to suggest that the boundaries should be so organised as to produce the desired result, that if it is desired that a particular constituency be Labour, the boundary is pushed a bit further, and so on. What one should be attempting to do is ensure that the number of seats won reflects the number of votes cast. That is the basis on which the election should be conducted, and it cannot be done on the basis of single-member constituencies. In particular, it cannot be done for so small a total number of seats.

Mr. Robin Cook: Could the hon. Gentleman clarify his thinking on the general principle he

is enunciating? Is he saying that whatever system one tried of alternative voting patterns one could not achieve the kind of proportional result that he is seeking on a single-member constituency basis and that any alternative form of voting aiming to achieve that outcome would be incompatible with single-member constituencies? If that is the general principle he is enunciating, he is ruling out quite a large number of forms of electoral voting that are practised in many other countries.

Mr. Beith: The proposition that the hon. Gentleman is testing is true in relation to so small a number of seats. I do not believe that one can produce a satisfactory system incorporating single-member constituencies which relates in the end the votes cast to the seats won. It simply cannot be done because we are not dealing with a large enough total number. For example, if one were to use a mixed system with single-member constituencies topped up from a list system, as in Germany—and I am merely replying to a challenge, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this a debate about the boundaries that should be adopted within the electoral system we have in Britain or is it a lecture on proportional representation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am listening very carefully and it is for the Chair to decide whether an hon. Member is in order or out of order.

Mr. Beith: I was endeavouring to respond as quickly as I could to a challenge from the Opposition Front Bench. I will simply complete my reply by saying that if, for example, one were to use instead of the system of boundaries set out in this order a system involving topping up, the number of single-member constituencies would have to be that much smaller within the total number of seats—say 40 or 50 seats—and the constituencies would have to be even larger, and the whole system would be that much more unsatisfactory. The alternative vote which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East canvasses from a sedentary position offers no guarantee of an ultimate relationship between results and votes cast. What it does prevent is the election in a given constituency of an individual on a minority of the votes cast.
But this is not the occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. to go into great detail on this matter. I know that you would criticise me if I did so. I have done it on a previous occasion and I shall do it on many subsequent occasions.
All I seek to say tonight is that the Boundary Commission, although it did its work in a proper manner, as it was charged to do, was embroiled in a vast gerrymander. The basis of that gerrymander is the decision to ensure that single-member constituencies be used, and the outcome of that at the last election was that the Conservative party got half of the votes and three-quarters of the seats, and the Labour party was quite seriously under-represented in Europe. Who knows what the end result will be from the votes cast in this election? The relationship is almost a random one, but it is a fairly confident prediction that there will not be much relationship between the votes cast and the seats won. That will be the case in this country, unlike any others in the Community. It will happen in England, Scotland and Wales, but not in Northern Ireland, and I do not believe that that is anything which those who believe as firmly as I do in British democracy can reasonably defend.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to draw attention to certain deficiences in the way in which the boundary commissioners have conducted their affairs with regard to the proposals for London.
First, the boundary commissioners have a duty to review European Assembly constituencies where there have been major changes in Westminster parliamentary constituencies. In the case of the Euro-constituency of London West, that has not occurred.
Secondly, the new London West electorate is about 17,000 below the electoral quota, whereas the previous figure was much closer to the quota.
Thirdly, the European Assembly constituencies were determined for the first time only five years ago. I do not believe that in that period there have been major demographic changes necessitating the sweeping alterations propsed by the commissioners.
Fourthly, the commissioners are required to publish a notice in such manner as they think best calculated to bring their proposals to the attention of those concerned. With regard to London West, the local papers were not even informed, so it is not surprising that the local people were not fully aware of what was at stake, especially as the proposals were announced on 29 July, on the eve of the summer holidays last year.
Fifthly, the commisioners exceeded their statutory duties by publishing a press release on 29 July which incorrectly referred to the relevant provisions of the 1978 Act. The press release suggested that
the Commission has no power to take into account any considerations (for example the breaking of local ties) other than… parity of electorates between the proposed constituencies.
That is not the case, so the commissioners misled local electorates.
Sixthly, in 1978–79 the Boundary Commission rightly regarded London as a special geographical consideration, but in two Euro-constituencies under the present proposals the Greater London area boundary is entirely ignored and parts of Surrey are included. I believe that that is wrong.
Seventhly, one expects any inquiry held to be such as to command the confidence of those with a complaint to make. The chairman, however, is an assistant commissioner and combines the role of defendant, judge and jury. Objectors have no opportunity to cross-examine a commissioner representative or to make any criticism of the proposals, as that would be seen as a criticism of the chairman of the inquiry.
Lastly, it is difficult for electors who have genuine cause for complaint to put their point of view across, because ultimately they have no recourse to the courts.
Therefore, with regard to London and especially London West — an extraordinary and incongruous amalgam of half an inner borough, Hammersmith, with outer London boroughs—the proposals have not secured the confidence of local electors. That fact should be made known to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: There could be no more appropriate occupant of the Chair than your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I make the point that the whole House knows that I am about to make. Whatever the division of opinion between the parties about the rest of the country, the division between

ourselves in Tyne and Wear and the county of Northumberland cannot be countenanced. I am talking not about Right versus Left, or right versus wrong, but about corruption versus decency. The division that has been made in Newcastle is corrupt—no more and no less than that. [Interruption.] The hon. Members on the Social Democratic and Liberal party Bench are jeering and trying to intervene from a sedentary position because they know that the division suits themselves and that it damned well does not suit everyone who lives in the area.

Mr. Beith: The reason why I seem somewhat critical of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that I regard the allegation that the boundary commissioners behaved corruptly in this matter as wholly mistaken and wrong. It would not have been made outside these walls.

Mr. Brown: Whatever the position, the boundary commissioners' decision to divide the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in two is widely resented there. It is resented in the riverside community — which is very much a whole—and in the area which I represent.
The reason why that decision is resented is not hard to discern. The decision makes a safe Labour seat on the river and a very marginal Tory, or perhaps Liberal, seat in the Northumberland hinterland, but it does so by dividing the city in two in a totally artificial way, and by dividing the district authorities.
I recognise some of the faces on the Government Benches. Hon. Members may try to mask their faces with their Order Papers, but I recognise them. They know that what I say is true. They know that not only will that boundary mean that the Northumberland seat will be highly marginal, but that it has been deliberately placed so as to ensure that the population of Tyneside — the riverside population which I represent—will not have its full say in the affairs of the European Community. An artificial line has been drawn through the middle of—the middle of Newcastle. There is no justification for drawing that boundary through the middle of Newcastle——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not keep repeating "the middle of Newcastle".

Mr. Brown: As the representative of the east of Newcastle, I would be the last person to repeat "the middle of Newcastle", to the annoyance of the House.
You must be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is considerable resentment on Tyneside at the way in which the boundaries have been drawn. People there are asking why districts on the river have not been included in one area or the other. It would have been possible for north Tyneside and south Tyneside to be in one district, and Gateshead and Newcastle district to be in another, so that district boundaries were not crossed. You are being jeered at, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the hooligan element in the alliance because they think that the boundary suits them. Democracy should not be decided by what suits the opportunistic elements of the alliance.
The original commission proposals were reasonable. The commissioners accepted Newcastle, north Tyneside, south Tyneside and Gateshead as separate districts, yet we are being advised to overthrow that, to treat it with contempt and to introduce a boundary that divides the city of, Newcastle in half. Newcastle does not want to be divided. It wants to be represented in its entirety in Europe by Dr. Gordon Adam. Having said that, I resume my seat.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 8.

Dlvision No. 230]
[11.58 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Favell, Anthony


Amess, David
Forth, Eric


Ancram, Michael
Franks, Cecil


Ashby, David
Freeman, Roger


Aspinwall, Jack
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Goodlad, Alastair


Baldry, Anthony
Gorst, John


Bellingham, Henry
Gregory, Conal


Benyon, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Ground, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Harvey, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'foik)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hawksley, Warren


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayes, J.


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hickmet, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cope, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lang, Ian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)





Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stern, Michael


Lester, Jim
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stradling Thomas, J.


Major, John
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mellor, David
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Merchant, Piers
Trotter, Neville


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon C.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Murphy, Christopher
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Tony
Walden, George


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Watson, John


Ryder, Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitfield, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Woodcock, Michael


Speller, Tony
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, Derek



Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Stanbrook, Ivor





NOES


Alton, David
Penhaligon, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Steel, Rt Hon David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Johnston, Russell
Mr. A. J. Beith and M. Michael Meadowcroft.


Kennedy, Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft European Assembly Constituencies (England) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.

European Assembly Constituencies (Scotland)

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the draft European Assembly Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.
The Boundary Commission for Scotland submitted its report to my right hon. Friend on 7 March. He laid it before the House on 22 March, together with this draft order, which is designed to give effect, without modification, to the commission's final recommendations. The draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which had no comments. Article 2 of the order substitutes the eight European Assembly constituencies described in the schedule for the eight present Assembly constituencies in Scotland. No change in the names of the constituencies is proposed. If the draft order is approved by both Houses, my right hon. Friend will submit it to Her Majesty in Council to be made.
The present Assembly constituencies were established in 1979 following an initial review by the Boundary Commission in 1978. The present review was made necessary by the creation in 1983 of new parliamentary constituencies on which the boundaries of the European Assembly constituencies must be based. It also takes account of changes and shifts in population. The Commission has completed its review in little more than 10 months and I should like to take this opportunity to thank it for its work, and particularly for submitting its report in time to enable its recommendations to be implemented for the elections in June.
The European Assembly Elections Act 1978 requires there to be eight European Assembly constituencies in Scotland. The Boundary Commission has no power to vary that number. The Act requires the commission to recommend Assembly constituencies which consist of two or more whole parliamentary constituencies, each having an electorate as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practicable, having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations. The electoral quota, that is to say, the average electorate on 26 April 1983 when notice of the review was published, was 491,929. Apart from the Highlands and Islands constituency, where there are obviously special geographical considerations, the 1983 electorates of the present Assembly constituencies varied from about 4 per cent. below the average in the south of Scotland to 15 per cent. above in Mid Scotland and Fife. In the Highlands and Islands the electorate was about 36 per cent. and will be 37 per cent. below the average. This means that the average electorate of the other seven Assembly constituencies has to exceed the electoral quota.
The Commission's provisional recommendations for the Glasgow and Lothians Assembly constituencies attracted no objections, and an objection made in respect of the Highlands and Islands seat by Mrs. Winifred Ewing, the Member of the European Parliament for that seat, was withdrawn.
There were four contentious areas, one in Tayside region and three in Strathclyde region. Two local inquiries were held. As regards Tayside, the commission accepted

the recommendation of the assistant commissioner, Mr. John T. Cameron QC, to adhere to its provisional recommendations which placed North Tayside parliamentary constituency in North East Scotland. The counterproposal would have placed North Tayside parliamentary constituency in Mid Scotland and Fife, and Stirling parliamentary constituency in Strathclyde West.
In the other case the assistant commissioner recommended acceptance of a counter-proposal which affected the placing of three parliamentary constituencies. The counter-proposal retained Kilmarnock and Loudoun parliamentary constituency in Strathclyde East instead of placing it in the South of Scotland, placed Cunninghame South parliamentary constituency in the South of Scotland instead of placing it in Strathclyde West, and placed Strathkelvin and Bearsden parliamentary constituency in Strathclyde West instead of in Strathclyde East.
The commission's original proposals would have produced electorates in the three Assembly constituencies involved, namely, South of Scotland, Strathclyde East and Strathclyde West, which ranged from parity to 2·2 per cent. above the electoral quota, and it divided two districts between Assembly constituencies, namely Hamilton, and Bearsden and Milngavie. It placed the whole of Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency, more than four fifths of the electorate of Cunninghame South constituency and almost two thirds of the electorate of Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency, in different Assembly constituencies from those in which they currently vote.
The counter-proposal produced electorates which range from 1 per cent. below the electoral quota to 2·5 per cent. above, and divided three districts between Assembly constituencies, namely, Cunninghame and Strathkelvin, as well as Hamilton. Under the counter-proposal, however, the electors of the three parliamentary constituencies involved remained in the same Assembly constituencies as they are at present.
The commission took the view that the difference in the balance of electorates between its proposals and the counter-proposal was not significant and that the balance of advantage lay in preserving continuity in the electorates of Assembly constituencies rather than in keeping districts intact. Those who had supported the original proposals pressed the commission for their retention and some asked for a further local inquiry. The commission, however, decided to adhere to its revised proposals without holding a further inquiry.
Apart from the Highlands and Islands, the commission's final recommendations produce electorates which range from 1 per cent. below the electoral quota in the South of Scotland to 11·6 per cent. above in North East Scotland. These figures are a considerable improvement on those achieved under the commission's recommendations in 1978, which varied from almost 6 per cent. below the electoral quota to more than 17 per cent. above, and they are also an improvement on the 1983 figures for the present seats which vary from some 4 per cent. below to 15 per cent. above the electoral quota. Moreover, the number of districts to be divided between Assembly constituencies will be reduced from about a dozen to fewer than half a dozen.
My right hon. Friend has received no representations since the commission submitted its report to him. In these circumstances, I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I, too, appreciate that the Boundary Commission had to work with great speed on this review.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Get on with it.

Mr. Dewar: I do not know whether the encouragement from the Conservative Benches will shorten my speech, although I am delighted to see present the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who once aspired to be the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie but who was thwarted in that ambition by the good sense of the electorate. I am glad to see that he is still taking a lively, or at least noisy, interest in Scottish Affairs.
As I was saying, the Boundary Commission had to work with great speed, and the result of the telescoped timetable—which was not its fault—has been a good deal of confusion and uncertainty to a late stage about the boundaries in Scotland. As was said when we were debating the English instrument, from the point of view of my party, that held back a number of important administrative arrangements, and rightly so, as democratic selection processes must be based on a knowledge of the boundary and constituency involved, and it was unfortunate that we should have been faced with such a predicament.
As for the merits of the changes, the House will strongly support me in saying that those who wish to be involved in the detailed arguments can try reading the report, and I do not intend to rehearse those arguments at length. The only area of real controversy from the point of view of my hon. Friends and I is, of course, what was done in terms of the adjustments to the South of Scotland and to the Strathclyde East and Strathclyde West seats.
As soon as the decision was made that Kilmarnock and Loudoun, which was in the South of Scotland, should be transferred to Strathclyde East — or, for that matter, when any other change was made — we had what I suppose in this House would be called a series of consequential amendments. As the only real criterion is the size of the European constituency, there had to be a sort of merry-go-round effect consequent on the decision to make a change in the boundaries. I can only record—and I think that I speak for all my hon. Friends—that the decision to move Kilmarnock and Loudoun into Strathclyde East; to take Cunninghame South out of Strathclyde West and into the South of Scotland; and to take Strathkelvin and Bearsden out of Strathclyde East and put it into Strathclyde West was a mistaken judgment, though I accept that it is a matter of judgment and that nobody can be absolute about such matters.
The commissioners accepted that there were substantial arguments for their original proposals and against the final recommendation that the House is being invited to adopt. In particular, we feel that it is unfortunate that Strathkelvin and Bearsden district council area will be split, and that Cunninghame district council is to be split, with Cunninghame North remaining in Strathclyde West and Cunninghame South going into the South of Scotland seat.
I accept that the relationship between a district council and a Euro-MP is not so important and close as the relationship between a representative in this House and his district councils. But that split in Cunninghame, on which strong representations were made to the boundary commissioners, should have been given more weight, and

we should have preferred their original recommendations. The commissioners accepted that there were disadvantages which had to be balanced against the advantage of maintaining a greater continuity of electorates in Assembly constituencies, and they recognised that differences of opinion would, perhaps, continue. I believe that they got it right at the first attempt and that the somewhat cursory consideration that led to the changes that we now contemplate were, on balance, mistaken.
Having said that, I must make it clear that we would not wish to make a mountain out of the matter. It is of significance but, for all that, we must accept that an honest balance was struck, at least in the minds of the commissioners, and I join in the congratulations that have been expressed to them on their efforts, at least in terms, of the conscientious way in which they set about their task, under the chairmanship of Lord Ross.
I look forward, now that we know the details of the boundaries, to the elections, when they come. Some, perhaps, slightly ambitious remarks were made about the Labour party's state of preparedness, and its electoral processes, by the Under-Secretary of State who presented the English order. Whether the boundaries had remained as they were originally or as they now are, I believe that, in a number of seats in Scotland, my party will do well in the elections on polling day. I am greatly strengthened in that view, because the MEP for Strathclyde, West, despite what is generally thought to have been an adjustment that would strengthen his chances of re-election, has slipped away in the night. He voted with his feet, and mysteriously turned up, if I may say so, in what is called a safe seat in the City of London. That says something about the morale and the state of preparedness of the other side of the political divide.
We shall fight on the existing boundaries, although we believe that the balance of the argument tipped in favour of the original recommendations. Having minuted our feelings on the matter, we are content to leave it there.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I pay tribute to the speed with which the Boundary Commission has made its report, and in broad principle we have no objections to its findings. However, its operation could have been made much simplier if Scotland had been treated as one multi-Member constituency to elect Members on a democratic basis to the European Parliament.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Liberal party's quest for seats in the European Parliament would gain credibility if hon. Members sitting on the Liberal Benches took part more frequently in the European debates of this Parliament?

Mr. Bruce: I think that the House knows how much the Liberal party takes part in the European debates inside the House, and outside the House. We are seeking democracy for the people of Europe, as well as for the people of the United Kingdom—a matter that seems not to interest Conservative Members.
I read an election leaflet this evening that was prepared by an aspiring but, I think, hopeless Conservative candidate who claimed that the Conservatives represented the largest one-language group in the European Parliament. If there is one admission of the failure of the European vision in the Conservative party, it is to make


a statement of that kind, which shows a total lack of understanding of the European dimension. In those circumstances——

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: What has that to do with the order that the House is debating?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I am listening very carefully. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the names and boundaries of constituencies.

Mr. Bruce: If I may continue with the main thrust of my argument, the whole of Scotland should have been treated as one constituency to elect Members of Parliament to Europe on a democratic basis. The concern that we have is not so simple as Conservative Members seem to imply. We are concerned that the Liberal party, and, indeed, the alliance, are denied representation in the European Parliament. However, we are more concerned that the representation of the British group in the European Parliament is a total distortion of the electorate's wishes as expressed in the last election.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the order deals solely with the boundaries and names of constituencies. The hon. Gentleman should limit his remarks to that matter.

Mr. Bruce: The boundaries as proposed will produce a distorted result. I believe that it is reasonable for the House to concern itself with whether the result of the European elections on the basis of these boundaries will represent the wishes of voters. I contend that that will not be the case. At the last European election, the Conservative party throughout the United Kingdom secured less than 50 per cent. of the vote, but 77 per cent. of the seats. In Scotland, the distortion was even sharper.
I suggest that the House would be better addressing itself to an order designed to secure a fair and proper representation of the British political spectrum in the European Parliament. It is not fair for the House to pass legislation that distorts representation in the European parliament and distorts the express wishes of the voters of Scotland. The order is in the interests neither of British democracy nor of European democracy.
I take on board the jibes of Conservative Members, but the House must consider whether it is reasonable that parties which can secure more than a quarter of the vote in general or European elections should be entitled to representation in the European Parliament. I am sure that the injustice of the system in Scotland at the next election will not fall at the feet of the alliance, but will fall at the feet of the Scottish National party, which is unlikely to win any seats at all——

Mr. Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his arguments go a little wide of the present arrangements? How would he propose that the rules should be altered within the context——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) addresses himself to that question, he will be ruled out of order.

Mr. Bruce: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My only concern is to ensure that the European Parliament is a properly balanced and representative

Parliament. This order is likely to secure a distortion in the representation of the European Parliament at the hands of the British Government and Parliament. That is regrettable.
It is clearly in order to address the problem of the purpose of the order, which is to propose boundaries that will secure eight independent Members of the European Parliament elected on the first-past-the-post system. The Government and the Boundary Commission could have produced one boundary for Scotland to elect eight members. That should have been done, and the time will come when our European colleagues will no longer accept the distortion. I sometimes wonder how Britain became a member of the Community, because one condition of entry was that we should be a democracy. If the order goes through, Britain cannot claim to be a democracy in the strict terms of the Community. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 9.

Division No. 231]
[12.25 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Amess, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Ancram, Michael
Harris, David


Ashby, David
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Baldry, Anthony
Hayes, J.


Bellingham, Henry
Hayward, Robert


Benyon, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hickmet, Richard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hind, Kenneth


Bottomley, Peter
Hirst, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Holt, Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howard, Michael


Bright, Graham
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Brinton, Tim
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bruinvels, Peter
Jackson, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Butcher, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Butterfill, John
Key, Robert


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Chope, Christopher
Lawler, Geoffrey


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lester, Jim


Conway, Derek
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Coombs, Simon
Lord, Michael


Cope, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Couchman, James
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Major, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Marland, Paul


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Mather, Carol


Evennett, David
Merchant, Piers


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fallon, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Favell, Anthony
Murphy, Christopher


Forth, Eric
Neubert, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Newton, Tony


Freeman, Roger
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Gale, Roger
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Roe, Mrs Marion


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Ryder, Richard


Goodlad, Alastair
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Gorst, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gregory, Conal
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Ground, Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gummer, John Selwyn
Speed, Keith


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Speller, Tony






Spencer, Derek
Walden, George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Watson, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitfield, John


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Viggers, Peter



Wakeham, Rt Hon John





NOES


Alton, David
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Malcolm



Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Tellers for the Noes


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and Mr. Charles Kennedy


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Johnston, Russell

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft European Assembly Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.

Disabled People (Barnsley)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Terry Patchett: I must make it clear to the Minister at the start that my reasons for seeking the debate arise from answers to parliamentary questions that I received from his Department relating to information that I was urgently seeking on behalf of the registered disabled unemployed in my constituency. It would not be unreasonable to say that I was amazed by the veil of secrecy that appeared as I began to seek information about them.
As I began to evaluate the extent of the problem, which one would assume would not be too difficult, I was amazed at the Minister's attitude. For example on Monday, 5 March I asked
the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the firms in the area covered by the Barnsley, East constituency who employ their quota of disabled people in accordance with the law."—[Official Report, 5 March 1984; Vol. 55 c. 466.]
To my great surprise, I was told that that was a secret. It was said that the Manpower Services Commission, which operates the quota scheme, treats information that would identify individual firms in confidence and that it would be inappropriate to publish the information requested. That reply is not acceptable to me and I do not believe that it is acceptable to the House. The MSC is a public body that is publicly accountable and it is in the interests of open government that information that we pay to acquire should be made available to hon. Members.
On 12 March I asked the Secretary of State
why he considers it inappropriate to publish the names of firms which employed a quota of disabled people in accordance with the law of the land.
There was yet anoher evasive reply from the Minister. He wrote:
There is no obligation on employers to make quota information publicly available. Successive Governments have treated information about the quota positions of individual employers as confidential. Individual employers are free to publish this information themselves if they so wish.
I do not accept that answer. If successive Governments have done that, successive Governments have been involved in worsening the problems of the disabled.
I must question the Minister's reply because a previous Labour Government treated the quota position of some individual employers as public information and prosecuted a number of them for failing to observe the quota provisions. I feel that I am entitled to have questions answered to clarify the issue in my constituency, which should not be too difficult a task. I do not know why the veil of secrecy prevails and I deplore the Department's attitude. Regardless of what has happened in the past, as a Minister in the Department of Employment it is the hon. Gentleman's responsibility to ensure that the quota laws are observed. I have not been a Member of this place while "successive Governments" have been in power, but the way in which they have treated the quota system appears to have been unfortunate, to say the least. I do not support secrecy where the law of the land is broken. Laws that were made 40 years ago should not be flouted. It appears that it was a kinder House of Commons 40 years ago, and it was certainly a more far-seeing one. It cared about the


disabled and it enshrined their rights in the 1944 statute to protect them from discrimination and to allow them to work. That is what the quota system is all about.
Why is it so difficult to get a straight answer to a straight question in this place? I want the measures enacted by previous Governments to be upheld and observed. I am not interested in perpetuating the secrecy that is shown by the Government and Government quangos such as the MSC. I ask the Minister to explain why the names of firms in my constituency which are observing the law cannot be supplied to me. Their position is honourable and law-abiding.
In another question on 12 March I asked the Minister:
how many firms in the area covered by the Barnsley, East constituency operate the quota scheme for the employment of disabled persons, as required by law; and what information he has regarding the number of firms to which this law applies, which are currently failing to employ the required quota.
I referred only to registered disabled. Yet again, I was told that
Information is not available in the precise form requested.
Perhaps the Minister will explain what that answer means. He added:
On 1 June 1983, there were 112 employers to which the quota provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 applied in the area covered the Barnsley, Wombwell, Goldthorpe, Mexborough and Hemsworth jobcentres. Of these, 39 met the quota and a further 68 held permits"——
permits of dispensation—
to engage workers not registered as disabled." — [Official Report, 12 March, 1984; Vol. 56, c. 33.]
Presumably, one adds 39 and 68, and subtracts the sum from 112, and the answer is five. Therefore, that was a complicated way of replying. One has to dissect the answer to find the figure that is embedded in it.
That means that the Minister knows that five firms in Barnsley, East are breaking the law and not meeting their statutory requirements under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. If one takes five as an average of every constituency in the country, one can see that a horrifying number of firms might be breaking the law, and the Government are doing absolutely nothing about it. There is not one hon. Member who could support that law breaking, for we are law makers, not law breakers. Not only should the Minister provide at once the information that I requested but he should enforce the Act throughout the country.
I think that the Minister will agree that enormous enthusiasm is being shown by his Government over policing an Act passed by the House, to control pickets involved in an important dispute. However, the humanity shown by the House 40 years ago in the 1944 Act, which said that firms should draw 3 per cent. of their work force from disabled workers, has been overlooked to the pain and detriment of many disabled, who face a bleak future unless they enjoy positive discrimination.
Conservative Members are enthusiastic about the Trade Union Bill, and can back it with thousands of police. However, a 40-year-old law that helps those least able to help themselves attracts no enthusiasm. The new law is enforced for the trade unions, but the old law is overlooked for the registered disabled. That is not only disgraceful but totally inhuman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was on the receiving end of the Government's attitude to the sick and disabled when he

sought to put through the House the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill, which was so cruelly killed by the Government. He then said that there were 5·5 million disabled people, and he wanted the Government to outlaw discrimination against the disabled.
I refer the Minister to the relevant parts of the 1944 Act. Section 9(1) states that where firms are not already employing the quotas, they should do so
at times when vacancies occur, to allocate vacancies for that purpose".
Section 9(2) states:
a person to whom this section applies shall not at any time take, or offer to take, into his employment any person other than a person registered as handicapped by disablement, if immediately after the taking in of that person the number of persons so registered in the employment of the person to whom this section applies … would be less than his quota.
Section 9(5) states:
A person to whom this section applies who for the time being has in his employment a person registered as handicapped by disablement shall not, unless he has reasonable cause for doing so, discontinue the employment of that person, if immediately after the discontinuance the number of persons so registered in the employment of the person to whom this section applies …would be less than his quota".
Section 9(6) also specifically states:
Any person who contravenes subsection (2) or subsection (5) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
I put it to the Minister that those figures are 40 years old, and he may like to consider an amendment to the 1944 Act to bring it into line with present-day prices.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence over this matter of such importance to my constituency, and indeed to every other constituency in this country. I look forward to some real information and some straight replies from the right hon. Gentleman tonight, and to assurances that his Government will uphold the law of this country in respect of the quota system employment of disabled persons. Let us hear, loud and clear, that the Government's intention is to uphold this law, and when they intend to begin to do just that.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) for allowing me to take part in the Adjournment debate which he has initiated. In raising the question of discrimination against disabled people in employment in his constituency he has done a service not only to his own constituents but to the handicapped in all our constituencies.
My hon. Friend gave examples of three occasions when he was given evasive answers. I am sure that he would not have been very surprised about that, because evasive answers are endemic with this Government. This appears to be especially true about details which are embarrassing to the Government's business paymasters. Examples can be found in other spheres—for instance, when questions have been raised about regional aid to firms which have moved to development areas and then moved out again.
Representing, as I do, a Liverpool constituency, I find it ironic that the Secretary of State for the Environment should be threatening councillors there with dire consequences if they declare what is euphemistically called an "illegal budget" aimed at serving the interests of disadvantaged people and saving them from cuts in jobs


and services, while at the same time the Government refuse to take action against employers who are in contravention of the 1944 Disabled Persons (Employment) Act.
There was a time when most employers adhered to the letter of the law. They were law-abiding rather than lawbreaking. I understand that in 1960 some 60 per cent. of firms adhered to the quota. Twenty years later, only 32 per cent. of employers were obeying the law. All the others were law-breakers in this matter.
In the debate on 18 November on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill, which I introduced, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security admitted that that 40-year-old law was not being enforced. He did not say why, although it is open to any Government to ensure that the law is enforced. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East has mentioned a number of instances in which, under the Labour Government, employers were penalised for disobeying this law. I would have hoped that that would happen many more times than it did even under the Labour Government.
It is a disgrace, especially at a time of mass unemployment — for which the Government are to a large extent responsible—that disabled people should suffer even more than the able-bodied from the shortage of jobs. A week or so ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) met a delegation of disabled people's organisations from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who assured him that some 80 per cent. of disabled people in their parts of Britain were jobless. I venture to suggest that on Merseyside, and probably in Barnsley, East, the circumstances are not very different. There is an obligation on all of us who have suffering humanity at heart to do something to lift the burdens on those people, who need to work even more than the able-bodied unemployed, because employment is therapeutic for disabled people.
Government Departments themselves are not without guilt in failing to observe the quotas. The answers to a number of recent questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) have been very revealing in that respect.
It may be argued that successive Governments have been to blame, but Labour party policy accepts the need to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. If my Bill had become law and the disablement commission had been set up, I am sure that such a body could have been of great assistance to the Government in finding ways and means of ensuring that employers observe the quota.
Many cases of discrimination in employment have come to light. The Under-Secretary of State will recall that I referred to him the case of Fiona Hartley in Thirsk, not a million miles from Barnsley, East, against whom the local jobcentre discriminated, despite the Minister's answer to me. I wonder whether the jobcentre in Barnsley is adopting the same attitude as the jobcentre in Thirsk, which denied Fiona Hartley the possibility of applying for a job but only a few hours later sent her able-bodied sister, who was married and used a different surname, after the selfsame job. Action must be taken against that king of discrimination against the disabled.
My hon. Friend has done a service in raising this matter today. I hope that it will be a first move to engage the Government's interest and concern to ensure that the 1944 Act is enforced, especially at this time of mass unemployment. The Government should not tell the

miners and the Liverpool councillors to obey the law when 68 per cent. of employers are being allowed to get off scot free while ignoring their obligations to the most needy members of society.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) on his success in the ballot and on choosing as the subject of this short debate a matter that understandably causes concern to many people in his constituency and throughout the country. I congratulate him, too, on the temperate way in which he put his case and I know that he speaks with the authority of a vice-chairman of his party's employment committee.
The House will recognise that the hon. Gentleman and I, and indeed the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), are at one in acknowledging that many disabled people face difficulties which they feel especially acutely in finding and retaining suitable jobs. I respect the hon. Gentleman's concern and his efforts to do what he can to promote employment among disabled people in the Barnsley area; I know that he attaches great importance to that.
As the Minister responsible, I accept that the Government must recognise and respond to the special needs of the disabled which arise to the extent that they are at a relative disadvantage in the labour market. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government remain firmly committed to maintaining the considerable level of assistance available to help to improve the employment prospects of disabled people.
The hon. Gentleman devoted much of his speech to one particular aspect of the range of measures which help to promote the employment of disabled people — the statutory quota scheme. He referred to what he alleged to be a veil of secrecy which surrounded the answers that I gave to his written questions. I must immediately repudiate that allegation. There was no intention to conceal anything, and still less to mislead the hon. Gentleman. He said that, in the case of one answer, he could arrive at the figure that he required only by subtracting one figure from another. I do not think that that is a very arduous requirement, but if the hon. Gentleman objected to the form of the answer, he could have written to me again. If he cares to write to me again after this debate on that or any other subject, I will do my best to ensure that he receives an intelligible answer.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that there was evidence to show that a number of firms in Barnsley were breaking the law by not fufilling their quota commitments. The hon. Member for West Derby also used the phrase "breaking the law". I shall try to clarify the hon. Gentlemans' thinking on this point, and I must refute the allegations. First, however, I should like to say a word or two about the quota scheme in general, in order to put the matter in context.
I readily accept that the quota is still regarded by many registered disabled people and others with an interest in these matters as an important safeguard for their employment prospects. Over the years, it has undoubtedly done much to help the disabled gain and keep jobs. It has been with us in broadly its present form since the end of the second world war. As both hon. Gentlemen will recognise, it originated in quite different circumstances. The Act was passed in 1944 in anticipation of large numbers of wounded and mutilated people returning from


service for their country and in recognition of the fact that society as a whole had an obligation to see that they ranked equally in their employment prospects with those who were not mutilated.
Circumstances have altered since then, and the original concept of the 1944 Act has to some extent been overtaken by circumstances, although it remains entirely valid as a symbol of our commitment to help disabled people's employment.

Mr. Patchett: Are we talking about some Act of whose existence I was not aware—a war disabled persons' Act —or about the Act of 1944? Has the 1944 Act been amended to apply only to the war disabled, or does it still apply to disabled people, full stop?

Mr. Clark: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the origins of the Act have to be seen in the context of 1944, when it was expected that a large number of wounded and mutilated people would be coming on to the labour market.
I will explain to the hon. Gentleman why his allegations of breaking the law are to some extent misconceived. There is not much time left, and I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not give way again. The hon. Member for West Derby used up more of my time than that of his hon. Friend.
The quota no longer operates as originally intended. One can argue about the reasons why that is so, but there can be no disputing the facts. The quota scheme applies only to registered disabled people, and registration is and always has been voluntary. For some years now, there have been nowhere near enough registered disabled people to enable all employers to meet their 3 per cent. quota in full. Even if they wished to do so, they could not. Registered disabled people currently account for only 1·1 per cent. of the total work force and are far outnumbered by those who suffer some disability but choose not to register. The provisions of the 1944 Act refer to registered disabled people. The first thing that we must recognise is that it is physically impossible for employers to comply, even with the best will in the world. There are not enough registered disabled people to go round.
The Government have asked the Manpower Services Commission to examine ways of making the quota scheme more effective within the framework of existing legislation. It has set up a working group including

grepresentatives from the Confederation of British Industry, The Trades Union Congress and voluntary organisations, which will report later this year.
In Barnsley, as in the rest of the country, the majority of employers do not and cannot employ the full 3 per cent. quota of disabled people. That does not affect the formal quota position. Many such firms employ other disabled people who have chosen not to register. They are quite a large number and many may suffer acute conditions, as the hon. Member for West Derby has often reminded us in his valuable speeches.
The hon. Gentleman quoted some figures that I gave him in a recent parliamentary reply which showed that, in an area that is somewhat wider than his constituency because of the coverage of the jobcentres concerned, out of 112 employers subject to the quota provisions, 39 met the 3 per cent. quota and a further 68 had obtained permits allowing them to recruit other than registered disabled people.
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in assuming that the small number of employers who neither fulfil the quota, nor hold a current permit, must be breaking the law. This is simply not the case. I must emphasise this point and make the position quite clear. It is not an offence to be below the 3 per cent. quota. An offence occurs only if an employer unreasonably discharges a registered disabled person when he is or would become below the quota or if he recruits other than registered disabled people when the firm is below quota and without a valid permit.
There are proper checks on employers' compliance with the quota requirements and I can assure the House that statutory duties are not being neglected or ignored as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
The figures on quota compliance are available and I have given them to the hon. Gentleman. The overall national figures are published each year in the Department of Employment Gazette, and, following the practice adopted by all previous Governments, we do not publish information about the quota positions of individual employers. I am quite sure that it is right to treat the information provided in this way as confidential, although there is nothing to prevent them from publishing the information themselves. Many have chosen to do so since the introduction of the requirement under the Companies Act 1980, whereby employers have to include a statement of their policy towards the employment of disabled people in the directors' report.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past One o' clock.